FACTS:

Petitioner Jesus C. Ocampo is the Training Coordinator of NIACONSULT, Inc., a subsidiary of the National Irrigation Administration. On March 21, 1988, K.N. Paudel of the Agricultural Development Bank of Nepal (ADBN) requested a training proposal on small-scale community irrigation development from NIACONSULT. Petitioner, as the training coordinator, sent a letter-proposal to ADBN on November 17, 1988, and another letter on January 31, 1989 confirming the availability of NIACONSULT to conduct the training program and requesting advance payment of 30% of the training fees. NIACONSULT conducted the training program for six Nepalese Junior Engineers from February 6 to March 7, 1989, and ADBN paid the training fee in two installments to petitioner. On April 1, 1991, NIACONSULT demanded the turnover of the total training fee from petitioner, but he failed to remit the amount. NIACONSULT then filed an administrative case before the Ombudsman against petitioner for serious misconduct and/or fraud or willful breach of trust. The Ombudsman issued an order requiring petitioner to file his counter-affidavit, but he failed to comply. A year later, the Ombudsman issued another order giving petitioner another chance to file his counter-affidavit, but he still failed to do so. Petitioner was required to appear before the Ombudsman to present evidence, and on November 18, 1993, the Ombudsman issued a resolution recommending petitioner's discharge from service, forfeiture of benefits, and special perpetual disqualification to hold office in the government or any government-owned or controlled corporation. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and to re-open the case, but it was denied by the Ombudsman. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari seeking to nullify the Ombudsman's resolutions.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the petitioner was denied due process in the administrative case against him.

2. Whether or not the Ombudsman had sufficient evidence to dismiss the petitioner from service and impose other penalties.

RULING:

1. The petitioner was not denied due process. The Ombudsman provided the petitioner with opportunities to file his counter-affidavit and present his evidence. However, the petitioner failed to comply with the orders of the Ombudsman.

2. The Ombudsman had sufficient evidence to dismiss the petitioner from service. The Ombudsman found that the petitioner committed dishonesty, untrustworthiness, and conduct prejudicial to the service based on overwhelming evidence. The penalties of forfeiture of benefits and special perpetual disqualification to hold office in the government or any government-owned or controlled corporation were also upheld.

PRINCIPLES:

• The right to due process includes the opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

• Administrative agencies have the discretion to impose penalties based on the evidence presented before them.