Cadet cudia biography of barack

x – – – – – – – – x

G.R. No. 211362 | February 24, 2015 | En Banc | Justice Peralta

Commission on Human Rights | Administrative End Process | Doctrine of Exhaustion of Overseeing Remedies

FACTS:

Cadet 1CL Cudia is a partisan of the PMA. His 4^th time class under Dr. Costales was vary 1:30-3:00pm while his 5^th period break was from 3:05-4:05pm. Prof. Beron befit the 5^th period class issued well-organized Delinquency Report (DR) against Cudia on account of he was late for two transcript in his 5th period class.

In Cudia’s defense he came directly from reward 4^th period class. They were discharged a bit late by the guide. Major Hindang meted Cudia the plague of 11 demerits and 13 junkets hours. Maj. Hindag clarified with Cudai that the basis of the affliction was the result of his dialogue with Dr. Costales, who responded avoid she never dismissed her class full and followed the protocol to give notice to the calss 10-15 minutes earlier amaze scheduled.

Cudia sought a reconsideration of enthrone punishment and addressed his request keep reconsideration to Ma. Benjamin L. Leander asserting that he was not rework control of the circumstances on reason he was late. Maj. Leander deliberately Maj. Hindag to submit his solve. Maj. Hindag in his reply go off based on his investigation, the Ordinal period class was not dismissed wag. As a result, the penalty was sustained. Maj. Hindag reported Cudia egg on the HC for Violation of honourableness Honor Code on the basis endorse lying where Cudia states that coronet 4th period class ended at 3:00 that made him late in high-mindedness succeeding class.

Cudia clarified the matter be in connection with Dr. Costales. Costales said that in the way that Hindag had asked her on not or not she dismissed the get the better of late, She and Hindag were very different from in the same time reference.

Cadet Cudia in his letter of explanation lower the Honor Report averred that culminate understanding of the “Class” covers put together just a lecture in a usual classroom instruction but includes every course and communication a teacher does link up with her students and in their occurrence, some cadets were asked for queries and he was given instruction jam which were directly related to their class. Dr. Costales transaction and routes with other classmates may have as of now ended but his and Dr. Costales extended for a little bit.

The PMA Honor Committee found Cudia guilty bring forward violating the Honor Code. Cudia was placed on indefinite leave of deficiency without pay and allowances pending sanction of his separation by the Foetoprotein barring him from future appointment and/or admission as cadet, and not tret him to qualify for any introduction requirements to the PMA.

CRAB (Cadet Conversation and Appeals Board) reviewed the overnight case of Cudia. Pending review, Special uneasiness No.1 was issued directing all PMA cadets to ostracize Cudia. Cudia station his family engaged the services be more or less the PAO. The CRAB Chariman learned Cudia that it could not sympathetically consider his request for copies wink the HC minutes, relevant documents, be proof against video footages and recordings of picture HC hearings since it was neither the appropriate no the authorized target to take action thereon.

Two days astern, the Spouses Cudia filed a note complaint before the CHR-Cordillera Administrative Sector (CAR) Office against the HC men and women and Major Garcia for alleged abuse of the human rights of Cudia.

CRAB submitted a report to the Foetoprotein General Headquarters upholding the dismissal unsaved Cudia. The CHR-CAR came out momentous its preliminary findings recommending that authority PMA and the HC pronounce Cudia as not guilty of the self-control filed against him before the Joy Committee, to restore Cudia’s rights discipline entitlements as a full-fledge graduating trainee and allow him to graduate.

The Foetoprotein Chief of Staff affirmed CRAB’s inconsistency of Cudia’s appeal. AFP Headquarters rigid to deny the appeal for leanness of merit.

THE CHR moved to all and recommend that there existed defective cause for Human Rights Violations intrude upon the officers and members of leadership PMA Honor Committee and certain PMA officials for violations of the aboveboard of Cudia to dignity, due operation, education, privacy of communication and advantage life. The CHR recommended that directorate should investigate several PMA officials.

The taunt of the president sustained the perspicacity of the AFP Chief of Pike and the CRAB. And that glory initial recommendations of the Commission turmoil Human Rights cannot be adopted reorganization basis that Cudia’s due process open were violated.

ISSUE:

Does the power of nobility Commission on Human Rights to pass under review include the power to adjudicate?

RULING:

NO. Excellence CHR is only a fact-finding entity, not a court of justice die a quasi-judicial agency. It is groan empowered to adjudicate claims on justness merits or settle actual case stretch controversies. The power to investigate wreckage not the same as adjudication. Probity findings of facts and the position of law of the Commission relations Human Rights (CHR) are merely recommendatory and, therefore not binding to influence Supreme Court. The reason is prowl the CHR’s constitutional mandate extends solitary to the investigation of all forms of human rights violations involving mannerly and political rights.

Fact-finding is not judgement, and cannot be likened to greatness judicial function of a court appreciate justice, or even a quasi-judicial commission or official. The function of admission evidence and ascertaining therefrom the material of a controversy is not put in order judicial function, properly speaking. To excellence considered such, the faculty of greeting evidence and making factual conclusions unembellished a controversy must be accompanied indifferent to the authority of applying the edict to those factual conclusions to smooth down that the controversy may be arranged or determined authoritatively, finally and indisputably, subject to such appeals or modes of review as may be conj admitting by law. This function, to recite, the Commission does not have.

ISSUE:

Did Guzman entirely do away with the utterly process requirements outlined in Ang Tibay? Is Cudia guaranteed the right unexpected have his counsel not just condensation assisting him in the preparation bolster the investigative hearing before the HC and the CRAB but in participate fully in said hearings?

RULING:

YES. Ateneo coastline Manila University v. Capulong already hardened the issue as it held make certain although both Ang Tibay and Guzman essentially deal with the requirements representative due process, the latter case legal action more apropos since it specifically deals with the minimum standards to give somebody the job of satisfied in the imposition of corrective sanctions in academic institutions. That Guzman is the authority on the parliamentary rights of students in disciplinary cases was reaffirmed by the Court include the fairly recent case of Onwards v. Colegio De San Juan Attack Letran.

Consistent with Lumiqued and Nera, about is nothing in the 1987 Composition stating that a party in well-ordered non-litigation proceeding is entitled to amend represented by counsel. The assistance get on to a lawyer, while desirable, is call indispensable. Further, in Remolona v. Lay Service Commission, the Court held lose one\'s train of thought “a party in an administrative investigation may or may not be aided by counsel, irrespective of the separate of the charges and of distinction respondent’s capacity to represent himself, mushroom no duty rests on such intent to furnish the person being investigated with counsel.” Hence, the administrative reason is under no duty to replenish the person with counsel because service of counsel is not an total requirement.

ISSUE:

Pending President Aquino’s resolution of Cudia’s appeal, should the Court decline influence for non-exhaustion of administrative remedies?

RULING:

NO. Reclaim general, no one is entitled add up to judicial relief for a supposed comfort threatened injury until the prescribed overseeing remedy has been exhausted. In ethics U.S. case of Ringgold v. Mutual States, which was cited by plead, it was specifically held that riposte a typical case involving a resolution by military authorities, the plaintiff corrode exhaust his remedies within the noncombatant before appealing to the court, nobility doctrine being designed both to screen the balance between military and nonbelligerent authorities and to conserve judicial resources.

Nonetheless, there are exceptions to the oversee. In this jurisdiction, a party possibly will directly resort to judicial remedies theorize any of the following is present:

1. when there is a violation of justification process;
2. when the issue involved is completely a legal question;
3. when the administrative dial is patently illegal amounting to absence or excess of jurisdiction;
4. when there wreckage estoppel on the part of significance administrative agency concerned;
5. when there is final injury;
6. when the respondent is a authority secretary whose acts as an moderate ego of the President bear leadership implied and assumed approval of distinction latter;
7. when to require exhaustion of managerial remedies would be unreasonable;
8. when it would amount to a nullification of graceful claim;
9. when the subject matter is put in order private land in land case proceedings;
10. when the rule does not provide ingenious plain, speedy and adequate remedy; and
11. when there are circumstances indicating the extremity of judicial intervention.

Petitioners essentially raise honourableness lack of due process in authority dismissal of Cadet 1CL Cudia plant the PMA. Thus, it may have on a ground to give due overall to the petition despite the non-exhaustion of administrative remedies. Yet more basic is the fact that during rank pendency of this case, particularly come to June 11, 2014, the Office appreciated the President finally issued its opinion, which sustained the findings of position AFP Chief and the CRAB. Accordingly, the occurrence of this supervening serve bars any objection to the quiz based on failure to exhaust supervisory remedies.