View full case

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION v. GODOFREDO G. CUANAN

FACTS:

The case involves a petition for review on certiorari assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) and the resolution of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) regarding the case of respondent Godofredo G. Cuanan. Luzviminda Borja and Juliana Castro filed separate administrative complaints against Cuanan for sexual harassment and conduct unbecoming a public officer. After an investigation, Cuanan was found guilty of sexual harassment and was recommended for forced resignation by the DECS-RO No. III Regional Director. This decision was affirmed by the DepEd Secretary. However, Cuanan filed a petition for reconsideration which was denied.

Cuanan then appealed his case to the CSC, which initially exonerated him from the charge of sexual harassment. However, the DepEd Secretary filed a petition for review/reconsideration with the CSC, which was not served to Cuanan. Despite this, Cuanan was reinstated to his former position as school principal. The CSC later issued another resolution finding him guilty of sexual harassment, grave misconduct, and conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service, resulting in his dismissal.

Cuanan filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, arguing that the CSC should not have entertained the petition for review/reconsideration filed by the DepEd. The CA granted the petition for certiorari and set aside the CSC resolution, finding that Cuanan's right to due process was violated since he was not notified of the petition and was not given a chance to respond.

The DepEd filed a motion for reconsideration with the CA, but it was denied. As a result, the DepEd brought the case to the Supreme Court through a petition for review on certiorari, raising two grounds of error.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the CA erred in taking cognizance of the petition for certiorari.

  2. Whether the CSC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing Resolution No. 041147.

RULING:

  1. The CA did not err in taking cognizance of the petition for certiorari. While a motion for reconsideration and a petition for review under Rule 43 were available remedies, the CA held that Cuanan's recourse to a petition for certiorari was warranted since the act complained of was patently illegal. The CSC gravely abused its discretion in granting the petition for review/reconsideration filed by the DepEd without regard for Cuanan's fundamental right to due process. Cuanan was not duly notified of the petition for review/reconsideration, nor was he required to file a comment thereon or given a copy of the said petition.

  2. The CSC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing Resolution No. 041147. The CA held that the DepEd failed to establish that the resolution was not yet final and executory when it filed its petition for review/reconsideration.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A petition for certiorari may be the proper remedy when the act complained of is patently illegal. The remedy of the aggrieved party may not be confined to a motion for reconsideration or a petition for review under Rule 43 if the circumstances warrant a petition for certiorari. (Citing general principles of certiorari)

  • The right to due process is a fundamental right that must be observed in administrative proceedings. The aggrieved party must be given notice and opportunity to be heard before any adverse decision or resolution is rendered against him. Failure to provide procedural due process constitutes grave abuse of discretion.