Question Admin Case

Hello po. Ask ko lang na pag sinabi po bang Administrative Case, dapat bang may written document ka na you are guilty of an admin. Case or pwede po ba yun na internal arrangement nalang ng agency nyo na isuspend ka?

And if suspended ka,like mga 3 months, automatically, dapat unsatisfactory na yung rating mo?

Thanks.

Please be informed that as a matter of policy, the Commission does not render opinions or rulings on issues that may eventually be the subject of a complaint or appeal before it. This is so especially when there are material facts necessary to the judicious adjudication of the issues which are not fully represented or substantiated as in this case.

Nevertheless, we wish to invite your attention to the following law and rules which may be relevant to your case, as follows:

1. Section 23, Rule 5 of the 2017 RACCS provides that:
“Section 23. Issuance of Formal Charge; Contents. – After a finding of a prima facie case, the disciplining authority shall formally charge the person complained of, who shall now be called as respondent. The formal charge shall contain a specification of charge, a brief statement of material or relevant facts, which may be accompanied by certified true copies of the documentary evidence, sworn statements covering the testimony of witnesses, a directive to answer the charge in writing, under oath in not less than three (3)days but not more than ten (10) days from receipt thereof, an advice for the respondent to indicate in the answer whether or not a formal investigation is demanded, and a notice that the respondent may opt to be assisted by a counsel.”
2. In Ray Peter O. Vivo vs. PAGCOR, G.R. No. 187854, the Supreme Court held: In administrative proceedings, procedural due process has been recognized to include the following: (1) the right to actual or constructive notice of the institution of proceedings which may affect a respondent’s legal rights; (2) a real opportunity to be heard personally or with the assistance of counsel, to present witnesses and evidence in one’s favor, and to defend one’s rights; (3) a tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction and so constituted as to afford a person charged administratively a reasonable guarantee of honesty as well as impartiality; and (4) a finding by said tribunal which is supported by substantial evidence submitted for consideration during the hearing or contained in the records or made known to the parties affected.

3. Section 3, Rule IX (Performance Evaluation)
(d) Performance evaluation shall be done every six months ending on June 30 and December 31 of every year. However, if the organizational needs require a shorter or longer period, the minimum appraisal period shall be at least 90 days or three months. No appraisal shall be longer than one year.
It may be inferred from the foregoing that suspension due to an administrative case should not affect the performance evaluation of an employee.

Please be informed that as a matter of policy, the Commission does not render opinions or rulings on issues that may eventually be the subject of a complaint or appeal before it. This is so especially when there are material facts necessary to the judicious adjudication of the issues which are not fully represented or substantiated as in this case.

Nevertheless, we wish to invite your attention to the following law and rules which may be relevant to your case, as follows:

1. Section 23, Rule 5 of the 2017 RACCS provides that:
“Section 23. Issuance of Formal Charge; Contents. – After a finding of a prima facie case, the disciplining authority shall formally charge the person complained of, who shall now be called as respondent. The formal charge shall contain a specification of charge, a brief statement of material or relevant facts, which may be accompanied by certified true copies of the documentary evidence, sworn statements covering the testimony of witnesses, a directive to answer the charge in writing, under oath in not less than three (3)days but not more than ten (10) days from receipt thereof, an advice for the respondent to indicate in the answer whether or not a formal investigation is demanded, and a notice that the respondent may opt to be assisted by a counsel.”
2. In Ray Peter O. Vivo vs. PAGCOR, G.R. No. 187854, the Supreme Court held: In administrative proceedings, procedural due process has been recognized to include the following: (1) the right to actual or constructive notice of the institution of proceedings which may affect a respondent’s legal rights; (2) a real opportunity to be heard personally or with the assistance of counsel, to present witnesses and evidence in one’s favor, and to defend one’s rights; (3) a tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction and so constituted as to afford a person charged administratively a reasonable guarantee of honesty as well as impartiality; and (4) a finding by said tribunal which is supported by substantial evidence submitted for consideration during the hearing or contained in the records or made known to the parties affected.

3. Section 3, Rule IX (Performance Evaluation)
(d) Performance evaluation shall be done every six months ending on June 30 and December 31 of every year. However, if the organizational needs require a shorter or longer period, the minimum appraisal period shall be at least 90 days or three months. No appraisal shall be longer than one year.
It may be inferred from the foregoing that suspension due to an administrative case should not affect the performance evaluation of an employee.