Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 52 views

    27 OCA Vs Canque

    Uploaded by

    Jude Raphael Collantes
    Sylvia Canque, a court employee, was accused of asking for ₱40,000 from a woman in exchange for releasing her common-law husband from criminal charges. An entrapment operation was conducted where Canque accepted marked money. Her hands also tested positive for fluorescent powder from the money. She was also found to have a cash shortage of ₱304,985. An investigation was conducted and found her guilty of grave misconduct. The Supreme Court upheld the findings, stating that Canque was afforded due process during the investigation as she was able to file her comment and was present at the hearing, and dismissed her from service.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    27 OCA Vs Canque

    Uploaded by

    Jude Raphael Collantes
    52 views2 pages
    Sylvia Canque, a court employee, was accused of asking for ₱40,000 from a woman in exchange for releasing her common-law husband from criminal charges. An entrapment operation was conducted where Canque accepted marked money. Her hands also tested positive for fluorescent powder from the money. She was also found to have a cash shortage of ₱304,985. An investigation was conducted and found her guilty of grave misconduct. The Supreme Court upheld the findings, stating that Canque was afforded due process during the investigation as she was able to file her comment and was present at the hearing, and dismissed her from service.

    Original Title

    27 OCA vs Canque

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Sylvia Canque, a court employee, was accused of asking for ₱40,000 from a woman in exchange for releasing her common-law husband from criminal charges. An entrapment operation was conducted where Canque accepted marked money. Her hands also tested positive for fluorescent powder from the money. She was also found to have a cash shortage of ₱304,985. An investigation was conducted and found her guilty of grave misconduct. The Supreme Court upheld the findings, stating that Canque was afforded due process during the investigation as she was able to file her comment and was present at the hearing, and dismissed her from service.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    52 views2 pages

    27 OCA Vs Canque

    Uploaded by

    Jude Raphael Collantes
    Sylvia Canque, a court employee, was accused of asking for ₱40,000 from a woman in exchange for releasing her common-law husband from criminal charges. An entrapment operation was conducted where Canque accepted marked money. Her hands also tested positive for fluorescent powder from the money. She was also found to have a cash shortage of ₱304,985. An investigation was conducted and found her guilty of grave misconduct. The Supreme Court upheld the findings, stating that Canque was afforded due process during the investigation as she was able to file her comment and was present at the hearing, and dismissed her from service.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    27 OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR VS CANQUE

    A.M. No. P-04-1830 / June 4, 2009

    Facts:
     Marissa Y. filed a letter-complaint before the NBI alleging that respondent Sylvia Canque
    asked from her the amount of ₱40,000.00 in exchange for the release of the former’s
    common-law husband, Jovencio Patoc, and the dismissal of his criminal cases in court. Patoc
    was charged with violation of Republic Act No. 9165 before the sala of Judge Victor R. Teves
    of the said court.
     The NBI operatives conducted an entrapment operation on June 3, 2004 at about 9:30 A.M.
    in the sala of Judge Teves. They arrested Canque after she received the amount of
    ₱40,000.00, previously marked with invisible ink and dusted with fluorescent powder, from
    Ypanto in the presence of NBI Investigator Jedidah S. Hife. Canque was brought to the
    Forensic Chemistry Section of the NBI for laboratory examination. The right and left hands of
    Canque were found positive for the presence of fluorescent powder.
     [Auditors from Region II also found that Canque had a cash shortage of ₱304,985.00. A letter
    of demand was sent to her to produce the missing funds and to submit a written explanation
    within seventy-two (72) hours why the shortage occurred. Respondent failed to file a
    comment on this.]
     The case was first referred to a consultant of the Office of the Court Administrator for
    investigation, report and recommendation. Canque in her Comment refuted the allegations
    against her.
     In a Resolution dated November 9, 2004, the Court, upon the recommendation of the OCA,
    reassigned the case to the Executive Judge, RTC, Cebu City for investigation, report and
    recommendation, considering that all the persons concerned were residents of Cebu City.
     Executive Judge Simeon P. Dumdum, Jr. conducted a hearing on October 18, 2005 wherein
    Canque was in attendance. He found respondent Canque guilty of grave misconduct and
    recommended the penalty of dismissal, with forfeiture of all her benefits and disqualification
    from re-employment in the government service.
     In a Resolution dated February 7, 2006, the Court referred the Investigation Report to the
    OCA for evaluation, report and recommendation. In its Report dated June 13, 2006, the OCA
    recommended that the Investigation Report of Investigating Judge Dumdum be set aside
    and the complaint be investigated anew upon finding that Canque was not informed of her
    right to be heard by herself and counsel during the investigation which allegedly amounted
    to a denial of her right to due process

    Issue:

    Whether or not the right of Canque to due process was violated. – NO

    Held:

    The essence of due process is that a party be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard
    and to present any evidence he may have in support of his defense. Technical rules of procedure and
    evidence are not strictly applied to administrative proceedings. Thus, administrative due process
    cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict judicial sense.  A formal or trial-type hearing is
    not required.
    In the case at bar, despite respondent’s protestations, the records readily show that she was
    afforded the opportunity to present her side as she was directed to file her comment on the
    complaint. She was notified of the hearing and was in fact present during the entire proceedings. As
    to the issue on the legality of her arrest, respondent has failed to submit evidence in support of her
    bare claims.

    Found GUILTY of GRAVE MISCONDUCT, GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY and GROSS DISHONESTY. She is
    DISMISSED from the service.

    You might also like