SECOND DIVISION
F/O
AUGUSTUS Z. LEDESMA, G.R.
No. 166780
Petitioner,
Present:
-
versus - QUISUMBING,
J.,
Chairperson,
CARPIO,
CARPIO MORALES,
COURT
OF APPEALS, AIR TINGA, and
TRANSPORTATION OFFICE VELASCO,
JR., JJ.
and CIVIL
AERONAUTICS
BOARD,
Respondents. Promulgated:
December
27, 2007
x
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
Tinga, J.:
This
is a Petition for Review on Certiorari[1]
under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure assailing the Decision[2] and
Resolution[3] dated
29 September 2004 and 18 January 1995, respectively, of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 79414 that affirmed the resolutions of the Air Transportation
Office (ATO) and the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) and denied petitioner’s
motion for reconsideration. The CAB resolution affirmed the ATO’s
order revoking petitioner’s airman license and banning him from taking any
theoretical examination in the future.
The
antecedent facts are as follows:
Petitioner
was a commercial airline pilot holding the rank of Second Officer on the Boeing
747-400 aircraft of the Philippine Airlines (PAL). To become a First Officer,
petitioner must acquire an Airline Transport Pilot License (ATPL). Pursuant to
Civil Air Regulation Administrative Order No. 60, series of 1956, petitioner
must accomplish the following to secure from the ATO the issuance of the ATPL: (1)
1,200 hours of accumulated flight and/or command time, including at least 300
hours of accumulated night/instrument flight/command time; (2) a successful
completion of the written theoretical examination; (3) Airmen Examination Board
(AEB) Certification of Official Release evidencing that he has successfully
hurdled 6 (six) examination subjects, namely, Civil Air Regulations, Theory of
Flight, Navigation, Meteorology, Air Traffic
Control and Weight and Balance; (4) a first-class
medical examination; and (5) Proficiency Flight/Simulator Check.[4]
Between
1998 and 2000, petitioner took the examination on the six subjects. In
particular, petitioner took the test in Theory of Flight on
On
On
P25,000.00 to
protect his grades from tampering.
The committee recommended the banning
of petitioner from taking theoretical examination in the future, to wit:
In view of the above, it is recommended that all the
airmen licenses of F/O Ledesma be revoked and that he
be banned from taking any theoretical examination in the future at the Airmen
Examination Board, without prejudice to the filing of appropriate criminal
charges against him, and those who later on will be found to have participated,
directly or indirectly, in the fabrication of the questioned document, subject
matter of this case.
With regard to Mr. Leopoldo Areopagita and Capt. Rommel Cadingan, the investigation will be continued, as far as
they are concerned, considering that there are still other pending cases
involving their names.
For ASEC’s concurrence/approval of the
recommendation.[7]
Petitioner
filed a motion for reconsideration[8] of
the resolution, raising the following arguments: (1) that he was not fully
accorded the opportunity to comprehend the accusation against him; (2) that he
was not given the opportunity to adduce evidence on his behalf; (3) that the
ATO investigating committee sweepingly concluded that his ATO-AEB certification
was spurious; and (4) that one of the members of the said committee, Captain Octavio Sunga, signed the
spurious ATO-AEB certification but did not inhibit himself from the
proceedings.
In a letter[9]
dated
In the assailed Decision dated P25,000.00 in exchange for his services
in securing the spurious ATO-AEB certification.
The instant petition attributes the
following errors to the Court of Appeals:
I
THE AIRMEN LICENSE GRANTED TO PETITIONER HAS EVOLVED
INTO A PROPERTY RIGHT THAT CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY CAPRICIOUSLY AND WHIMSICALLY BY
THE AIR TRANSPORTATION OFFICE AND CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD WITHOUT DUE PROCESS
OF LAW.
II
THE
COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN [THE] RULING THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT DEPRIVED OF HIS
RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE OF CAUSE OF ACCUSATION AGAINST HIM AND HIS
RIGHT TO COUNSEL.
III
THE
COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION FILED BY
PETITIONER CURED ANY DEFECTS OR IRREGULARITIES DURING THE AIR TRANSPORTATION
OFFICE AND CIVIL AERONATUICS BOARD PROCEEDINGS.
IV
THE
COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HASTILY CONCLUDING THAT THE CERTIFICATION OF RELEASE
ISSUED IN FAVOR OF PETITIONER WAS TAMPERED.
V
THE
COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THE ADMISSION OF PETITIONER IN GIVING [P]25,000 WAS A BRIBE TO SECURE A FICTITIOUS CERTIFICATE OF
RELEASE.
VI
THE
ATO SHOULD HAVE ORDERED PETITIONER TO TAKE ANOTHER EXAM IN WEIGHT AND BALANCE
IN ORDER TO FULLY DETERMINE HIS CAPACITY AND KNOWLEDGE OVER THE SAID SUBJECT
MATTER.[15]
Essentially, the assigned errors raise
three major arguments, namely: denial of due process in the proceedings before
the ATO and the CAB; the undue weight accorded to petitioner’s giving of P25,000.00
to a “middleman” operating at the ATO; and the alleged harshness of the penalty
imposed on petitioner.
The issue of due process in the proceedings before the ATO had already
been raised and passed upon by the CAB and the Court of Appeals. The petitioner
merely reiterates the same arguments in support of this position. These arguments
relate to the right to be informed of the charge, the requirements of
administrative due process and the right to counsel and the nature of the
license in relation to due process.
The tribunals below correctly
concluded that the minimum requirements of administrative due process have been
complied with. Due process, as a constitutional precept, does not always and in
all situations require a trial-type proceeding. Due process is satisfied when a
person is notified of the charge against him and given an opportunity to
explain or defend himself. In administrative proceedings, the filing of charges
and giving reasonable opportunity for the person so charged to answer the
accusations against him constitute the minimum requirements of due process.[16]
The essence of due process is
simply to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity
to explain one’s side, or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the
action or ruling complained of.[17]
Petitioner’s plaint that he did not
fully appreciate the nature of the charges against him because the ATO even
without an ostensible complainant against him failed to state or announce that
petitioner was being charged with falsification, is incorrect. The subpoena
issued to him clearly stated that petitioner should appear before the panel
investigating his “alleged falsification of the AEB examination results.”[18]
The absence of a complainant also did
not affect the regularity of the investigation. As opposed to a regular trial
court, an administrative agency, vested with quasi-judicial functions, may investigate
an irregularity on its own initiative. Particularly in the instant case, the
overriding considerations of public safety warranted the investigation of the
falsification of the subject ATO-AEB certification, which allowed petitioner to
undergo training despite his lack of qualifications.
Concerning the right to
representation, it is sufficient that petitioner’s counsel of choice was
allowed to submit in writing his observations on the investigation. Petitioner’s
counsel even filed a memorandum before the CAB. What is frowned upon is the absolute
deprivation of the right to counsel. The counsel’s participation in a
proceeding similar to that of a courtroom trial is not required. Administrative
due process cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict judicial
sense for it is enough that the party is given the chance to be heard before
the case against him is decided.[19]
Petitioner contends that his airman
license has become a property right protected by due process and could not be
taken away capriciously. Petitioner argues that due process and fair play
demand that there must be a determination of his capacity by allowing him to
take another examination in Weight and Balance.
As already discussed above, the ATO has
complied with the minimum standards of administrative due process in
investigating petitioner on the fabrication of his ATO-AEB certification and
the conclusions arrived at by the ATO were supported by evidence on record and
affirmed by the CAB and the Court of Appeals. Thus, the revocation of
petitioner’s airman license was imposed in accordance with the requirements of
due process. Moreover, petitioner’s airman license cannot be considered a
property right, it is but a mere privilege, subject to
the restrictions imposed by the ATO and its revocation if warranted.
In any event, the Court of Appeals is
correct in ruling that whatever irregularity in the ATO proceedings was cured by
petitioner’s filing of a motion for reconsideration.
Petitioner insists that the denial of
the motion for reconsideration was issued hastily because the motion pointed
out irregularities in the conduct of the investigation, hence, the motion for
reconsideration did not cure the irregularity in the ATO proceedings.
That petitioner appears to have been
singled out by the Investigating Committee does not negate its finding that he
was guilty of securing a tampered ATO-AEB certification by buying off the
middleman, Areopagita. Notwithstanding the perceived
irregularity and impartiality of the investigating committee, the truth of the
matter is that the ATO’s finding on petitioner’s
participation in the falsification of the ATO-AEB certification is supported by
evidence on record.
Significantly, petitioner seeks
redress even though since day one, he has already fully realized he is not
entitled to it, as he comes to court with unclean hands and admitted that he paid Areopagita P25,000.00 to allegedly protect his test
results from tampering. Aside from petitioner’s admission, there is adequate
evidence proving that petitioner’s ATO-AEB certification was falsified. It is
undisputed that the test result on Weight and Balance was tampered. Both the
ATO and the CAB found that petitioner knew about the tampering for he paid P25,000.00 to Areopagita.
Petitioner’s pretense that the money was given merely to ensure that his grade
would be protected is absurd and flimsy.
The Court has reviewed the findings
of the ATO and fully concurs with its conclusion. In reviewing administrative
decisions of the executive branch of the government, the findings of facts made
therein are to be respected so long as they are supported by substantial
evidence. Hence, it is not for the reviewing court to weigh the conflicting
evidence, determine the credibility of witnesses, or otherwise substitute its
judgment for that of the administrative agency with respect to the sufficiency of
evidence. Administrative decisions in matters within the executive jurisdiction
can only be set aside on proof of gross abuse of discretion, fraud, or error of
law. These principles negate the power of the reviewing court to re-examine the
sufficiency of the evidence in an administrative case as if originally
instituted therein, and do not authorize the court to receive additional
evidence that was not submitted to the administrative agency concerned.[20]
On the propriety of the penalty of
revocation of petitioner’s license, the Court finds the penalty commensurate
with petitioner’s infraction.
Under Executive Order No. 125, Sec.
12,[21]
the ATO is vested with the function to establish and prescribe rules and
regulations for the issuance of license to qualified airmen. Corollary to this
function is the power to impose sanctions on erring airmen. The Court cannot
fault the ATO for the revocation of petitioner’s airman license because it is
the bounden duty of the ATO to order the revocation of licenses when warranted
by public safety considerations.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for
review on certiorari is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 79414 are hereby AFFIRMED. Costs
against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO T. CARPIO CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice Associate Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO,
JR.
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson,
Second Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[2]