Delegation of Powers
COSMOS BOTTLING CORPORATION vs. COMMISSION EN BANC of the SEC
G.R. No. 199028, November 12, 2014
In this case the petitioner Cosmos failed to submit its 2005 Annual Report to the SEC
within the prescribed periods. Petitioner requested an extension of time to file the same
explaining that its failure was due to non completion by its external auditors of their audit
procedures. SEC-CFD denied the said extension and sent letters ordering Cosmos to
submit its Annual Reports and to show cause why the Subject Registration/Permit
should not be revoked.
Thus failing to comply upon several demands SEC-CFD ordered the suspension of the
Subject Registration/Permit (suspension order) of the petitioner. The SEC-CFD referred
the matter to the SEC En Banc for its consideration and approval of the subject
order. Afterwards, the SEC En Banc issued a Resolution wherein they resolved to: (a)
deny Cosmos’s request for the lifting of the suspension order; and (b) revoke the
Subject Registration/Permit.
Delegation of Powers: As an administrative agency with both regulatory and
adjudicatory functions, SEC was given the authority to delegate some of its functions to
its various operating departments, such as the SEC-CFD. Naturally, SEC has the power
to review the acts performed by its operating departments in the exercise of the former’s
delegated functions. In this case the Supreme Court disagrees with the findings of both
the SEC En Banc and the CA that the Revocation Order emanated from the SEC En
Banc. Rather, such Order was merely issued by the SEC-CFD as one of the SEC’s
operating departments which has the authority to do so. SEC-CFD’s referral of the case
to the SEC En Banc for its consideration which resulted in the issuance of a Resolution
was merely an internal procedure inherent in the exercise by the SEC of its
administrative and regulatory functions. In sum, the Revocation Order is properly
deemed as a decision issued by SEC-CFD as one of the Operating Departments of the
SEC, and accordingly, may be appealed to the SEC En Banc, as what Cosmos properly
did in this case. Perforce, the SEC En Banc and the CA erred in deeming Cosmos’s
appeal as a motion for reconsideration and ordering its dismissal on such ground.
EBDANE vs. APURILLO
G.R. No. 204172, December 09, 2015
RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS
In this case respondents alleged that there was a violation of their right to due process
since: (a) they were not made to comment on the anonymous complaint; and (b) no
preliminary investigation was conducted prior to the issuance of the Formal Charge.
The case arose when Acting Sec. Ebdane issued the Formal Charge against
respondents, who were then DPWH Officials for Grave Misconduct and been directed to
file their their answer for the alleged irregularity in their work.The said irregularity
stemmed from an anonymous complaint from a concerned employee of the DPWH,
Tacloban City, claiming that R.M. Padillo Builders a local contractor won the bidding for
construction of the Lirang Revetment Project despite its non-inclusion in the list of
Registered Construction Firms (RCF) which were qualified to bid. In its answer,
respondents argued that they were not in any position to answer the Formal Charge
against them due to lack of basis and prayed for the dismissal of the charge and the
lifting of the preventive suspension. Further, they expressly waived their rights to a
formal hearing, and sought instead, that the case against them be decided based on the
records submitted.
Issue:
Whether or not respondents' due process rights were violated?
Held:
No, respondents right to due process were not violated.
The essence of procedural due process is embodied in the basic requirement of notice
and a real opportunity to be heard. In administrative proceedings procedural due
process simply means the opportunity to explain one's side or the opportunity to seek a
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. "To be heard" does not mean only
verbal arguments in court; one may also be heard thru pleadings. Where opportunity to
be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of
procedural due process.
In this case, the Court finds that while there were missteps in the proceedings before
the DPWH when respondents were not made to file their initial comment and no
preliminary investigation was conducted before the filing of the Formal Charge against
them, contrary to the procedure under the URACCS they were, nonetheless, accorded
a fair opportunity to be heard. No violation of due process were committed because the
Formal Charge directed them to submit their answer in writing and under oath and all
evidences they wish to present within ten (10) days from receipt of said charge.
Moreover, respondents had presented their position before the agency, and more
significantly, expressly waived their rights to a formal hearing and prayed that the case
against them be decided based on the records submitted. Thus, the foregoing clearly
negates their contention that they were deprived of the right to due process of law.
