PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION

A. UNJUSTIFIED PS
In the procedure adopted by petitioner, respondents were preventivey suspended in the
sa!e "or!a char#es issued by the "or!er without the atter $nowin# that there were pendin#
ad!inistrative cases a#ainst the!. It is true that prior notice and hearin# are not re%uired in the
issuance o" a preventive suspension order.
&
'owever, considerin# that respondents were
preventivey suspended in the sa!e "or!a char#es that we now decare nu and void, then their
preventive suspension is i$ewise nu and void.
(asty, the )A co!!itted no reversibe error in orderin# the pay!ent o" bac$ saaries
durin# the period o" respondents* preventive suspension. As the ad!inistrative proceedin#s
invoved in this case are void, no dein%uency or !isconduct !ay be i!puted to respondents and
the preventive suspension !eted the! is baseess. )onse%uenty, respondents shoud be awarded
their saaries durin# the period o" their un+usti"ied suspension.
,
In #rantin# their bac$ saaries,
we are si!py repairin# the da!a#e that was unduy caused respondents, and uness we can turn
bac$ the hands o" ti!e, we can do so ony by restorin# to the! that which is physicay "easibe
to do under the circu!stances.
-
The principe o" .no wor$, no pay/ does not appy where the
e!poyee hi!se" was unaw"uy "orced out o" +ob.
FORMAL CHARGE
For!a )har#e. I" a pri!a "acie case is estabished durin# the investi#ation, a "or!a
char#e sha be issued by the discipinin# authority. A "or!a investi#ation sha "oow. In the
absence o" a pri!a "acie case, the co!paint sha be dis!issed.
These "or!a char#es contained brie" state!ents o" !ateria or reevant "acts, a directive
to answer the char#es within seventy two 01,2 hours "ro! receipt thereo", an advice that they had
the ri#ht to a "or!a investi#ation and a notice that they are entited to be assisted by a counse o"
their choice
3
.
Indeed, the )S) 4ues does not speci"icay provide that a "or!a char#e without the
re%uisite prei!inary investi#ation is nu and void. 'owever, as ceary that upon receipt o" a
co!paint which is su""icient in "or! and substance, the discipinin# authority sha re%uire the
person co!pained o" to sub!it a )ounter5A""idavit6)o!!ent under oath within three days "ro!
receipt. The use o" the word .sha/ %uite obviousy indicates that it is !andatory "or the
discipinin# authority to conduct a prei!inary investi#ation or at east respondent shoud be
#iven the opportunity to co!!ent and e7pain his side. As can be #eaned "ro! the procedure set
"orth above, this is done prior to the issuance o" the "or!a char#e and the co!!ent re%uired
therein is di""erent "ro! the answer that !ay ater be "ied by respondents. )ontrary to
1
Carabeo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 178000 and 178003, December 4, 00!, "07 #CRA
3!4.

$abella v. CA, 34" %&'l !40, !()!(3 *1!!7+.

3
Neeland v. ,'llanueva, -r., 41" %&'l (80, (!4.
4
#ee RRACC#
petitioner*s cai!, no e7ception is provided "or in the )S) 4ues. Not even an indict!ent in
"a#ranti as cai!ed by petitioner. 0Winston F. Garcia vs Mario I. Molina and Albert M. Velasco,
G.R. No. 157383, Auust 1!, "!1!2
DUE PROCESS
The essence o" due process is that a party be a""orded a reasonabe opportunity to be heard
and to present any evidence he !ay have in support o" his de"ense or si!py an opportunity to be
heard8
9
or as appied to ad!inistrative proceedin#s, an opportunity to see$ a reconsideration o"
the action o" ruin# co!pained o".
:
;ne !ay be heard, not soey by verba presentation but
aso, and perhaps even !any ti!es !ore creditaby than ora ar#u!ent, throu#h peadin#s.
Technica rues o" procedure and evidence are not even stricty appied to ad!inistrative
proceedin#s, and ad!inistrative due process cannot be "uy e%uated to due process in its strict
+udicia sense.
A. No Preliminary Invesi!aion "e#ore $e iss%an&e o# Formal C$ar!e
This is true even i" the co!painant is the discipinin# authority hi!se", as in the present
case. To co!py with such re%uire!ent, he coud have issued a !e!orandu! re%uirin#
respondents to e7pain why no discipinary action shoud be ta$en a#ainst the! instead o"
i!!ediatey issuin# "or!a char#es. <ith respondents* co!!ents, petitioner woud have
propery evauated both sides o" the controversy be"ore !a$in# a concusion that there was a
pri!a "acie case a#ainst respondents, eadin# to the issuance o" the %uestioned "or!a char#es. It
is noteworthy that the very acts sub+ect o" the ad!inistrative cases ste!!ed "ro! an event that
too$ pace the day be"ore the "or!a char#es were issued. It appears, there"ore, that the "or!a
char#es were issued a"ter the soe deter!ination by the petitioner as the discipinin# authority
that there was a pri!a "acie case a#ainst respondents. 0Winston F. Garcia vs Mario I. Molina and
Albert M. Velasco, G.R. No. 157383, Auust 1!, "!1!2
To condone this woud #ive the discipinin# authority an unrestricted power to +ud#e by
hi!se" the nature o" the act co!pained o" as we as the #ravity o" the char#es. <e, there"ore,
concude that respondents were denied due process o" aw. Not even the "act that the char#es
a#ainst the! are serious and evidence o" their #uit is = in the opinion o" their superior = stron#
can co!pensate "or the procedura shortcut underta$en by petitioner which is evident in the
record o" this case.
1
The "iin# by petitioner o" "or!a char#es a#ainst the respondents without
co!pyin# with the !andated prei!inary investi#ation or at east #ive the respondents the
opportunity to co!!ent vioated the atter>s ri#ht to due process. 'ence, the "or!a char#es are
void ab initio and !ay be assaied directy or indirecty at anyti!e.
?
'. Fail%re o raise $e a"sen&e o# (reliminary invesi!aion in $e invesi!ain! "o)y
(
%'l'p'nas .oan Compan/, 0nc. v. #ecur't'es and 12c&an3e Comm'ss'on, G.R. No. 10470,
Apr'l 4, 001, 3(" #CRA 1!3
"
Ad'on3 v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 13"480, December 4, 001, 371 #CRA 3734 ,da. de
Dela Cru5, et al. v. Ab'lle, G.R. No. 1301!", $ebruar/ ", 001, 3( #CRA "!1 *001+.
7
%at. Go v. N%C, 338 %&'l 1", 171 *1!!7+.
8
1n3r. Rub'o, -r. v. 6on. %aras, 4!( %&'l "!, "43 *00(+.
The contention that the respondents waived their ri#ht to prei!inary investi#ation as
they "aied to raise it be"ore their a#ency is atenabe.
It is we5setted that a decision rendered without due process is void ab initio and !ay be
attac$ed at anyti!e directy or coateray by !eans o" a separate action, or by resistin# such
decision in any action or proceedin# where it is invo$ed.
@
Aoreover, whie respondents "aied to
raise be"ore the BSIS the ac$ o" prei!inary investi#ation, records show that in their Ur#ent
Aotion to 4esove 0their Aotion to (i"t Preventive Suspension ;rder2 "ied with the )S),
respondents %uestioned the vaidity o" their preventive suspension and the "or!a char#es a#ainst
the! "or ac$ o" prei!inary investi#ation. There is, thus, no waiver to spea$ o".
The cardina precept is that where there is a vioation o" basic constitutiona ri#hts, courts
are ousted "ro! their +urisdiction. The vioation o" a party>s ri#ht to due process raises a serious
+urisdictiona issue which cannot be #ossed over or disre#arded at wi. <here the denia o" the
"unda!enta ri#ht to due process is apparent, a decision rendered in disre#ard o" that ri#ht is void
"or ac$ o" +urisdiction. This rue is e%uay true in %uasi5+udicia and ad!inistrative proceedin#s,
"or the constitutiona #uarantee that no !an sha be deprived o" i"e, iberty, or property without
due process is un%uai"ied by the type o" proceedin#s 0whether +udicia or ad!inistrative2 where
he stands to ose the sa!e. *Monto#a v. Varilla, G.R. No. 18!1$%, &ece'ber 18, "!!8, 57$ ()RA
831, 8$3.2

Athou#h ad!inistrative procedura rues are ess strin#ent and o"ten appied !ore
iberay, ad!inistrative proceedin#s are not e7e!pt "ro! basic and "unda!enta procedura
principes, such as the ri#ht to due process in investi#ations and hearin#s.
&C
In particuar, due
process in ad!inistrative proceedin#s has been reco#niDed to incude the "oowin#E 0&2 the ri#ht
to actua or constructive notice to the institution o" proceedin#s which !ay a""ect a respondent>s
e#a ri#hts8 0,2 a rea opportunity to be heard personay or with the assistance o" counse, to
present witnesses and evidence in one>s "avor, and to de"end one>s ri#hts8 0-2 a tribuna vested
with co!petent +urisdiction and so constituted as to a""ord a person char#ed ad!inistrativey a
reasonabe #uarantee o" honesty as we as i!partiaity8 and 032 a "indin# by said tribuna which
is supported by substantia evidence sub!itted "or consideration durin# the hearin# or contained
in the records or !ade $nown to the parties a""ected.
&&
NOT ENTITLED TO 'E INFORMED OF THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OF AN* INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE
In "act in Pe"ianco v. Aora,
&,
the )ourt had the occasion to rue that a respondent in an
ad!inistrative case is not entited to be in"or!ed o" the "indin#s and reco!!endations o" any
investi#atin# co!!ittee created to in%uire into char#es "ied a#ainst hi! = he is entited ony to
the ad!inistrative decision based on substantia evidence !ade o" record, and a reasonabe
opportunity to !eet the char#es and the evidence presented a#ainst hi! durin# the hearin# o" the
!
1n3r. Rub'o, -r. v. 6on. %aras, 4!( %&'l "!, "43 *00(+.
10
C'v'l #erv'ce Comm'ss'on v. .ucas, 3"1 %&'l 48", 4!1 *1!!!+.
11
$abella v. CA, 34" %&'l !40, !()!(3 *1!!7+.
1
G.R. No. 1348, -anuar/ 1!, 000, 3 #CRA 43!.
investi#ation co!!ittee. It is the ad!inistrative resoution, not the investi#ation report, which
shoud be the basis o" any "urther re!edies that the osin# party in an ad!inistrative case !i#ht
wish to pursue.
4espondent had been a!py accorded the opportunity to be heard. She was re%uired to
answer the "or!a char#e a#ainst her and #iven the chance to present evidence in her beha". She
activey participated in the proceedin#s and even cross5e7a!ined the witnesses a#ainst her.
)eary, based on the above +urisprudentia pronounce!ents the appeate court*s "indin# that
respondent was denied due process is uttery without basis.
SU'STANTIAL EVIDENCE
Ad!inistrative proceedin#s are #overned by the .substantia evidence rue./
&-
A "indin#
o" #uit in an ad!inistrative case woud have to be sustained "or as on# as it is supported by
substantia evidence that the respondent has co!!itted the acts stated in the co!paint or "or!a
char#e. As de"ined, substantia evidence is such reevant evidence as a reasonabe !ind !ay
accept as ade%uate to support a concusion.
&3
PA*MENT OF 'AC+ SALARIES
A. Foid For!a )har#e6Foid PS
As the ad!inistrative proceedin#s invoved in this case are void, no dein%uency or
!isconduct !ay be i!puted to respondents and the preventive suspension !eted the! is
baseess. )onse%uenty, respondents shoud be awarded their saaries durin# the period o" their
un+usti"ied suspension.
&9
In #rantin# their bac$ saaries, we are si!py repairin# the da!a#e that
was unduy caused respondents, and uness we can turn bac$ the hands o" ti!e, we can do so
ony by restorin# to the! that which is physicay "easibe to do under the circu!stances. The
principe o" .no wor$, no pay/ does not appy where the e!poyee hi!se" was unaw"uy
"orced out o" +ob.
&:
DISCIPLINING AUTHORIT* ,AS THE COMPLAINANT- THE PROSECUTOR AND
THE .UDGE- ALL AT THE SAME TIME.
The petitioners subse%uenty "ied a Aotion to Dis!iss averrin# that i" the investi#ation
wi continue, they wi be deprived o" their ri#ht to due process because the )ivi Service
)o!!ission was the co!painant, the Prosecutor and the Jud#e, a at the sa!e ti!e.
The "act that the co!paint was "ied by the )S) itse" does not !ean that it coud not be
an i!partia +ud#e. As an ad!inistrative body, its decision was based on substantia "indin#s.
13
7campo v. 78ce of t&e 7mbudsman, G.R. No. 114"83, -anuar/ 18, 000, 3 #CRA 17.
14
9estern #&'p/ard #erv'ces, 0nc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110340, :a/ 8, 001, 3(8
#CRA (7
1(
$abella v. CA, 34" %&'l !40, !()!(3 *1!!7+.
1"
Neeland v. ,'llanueva, -r., 41" %&'l (80, (!4.
Factua "indin#s o" ad!inistrative bodies, bein# considered e7perts in their "ied, are bindin# on
the Supre!e )ourt
&1
.
FORUM SHOPPING
Foru! shoppin# consists o" "iin# o" !utipe suits invovin# the sa!e parties "or the
sa!e cause o" action, either si!utaneousy or successivey, "or the purpose o" obtainin# a
"avorabe +ud#!ent.
&?
It !ay aso consist in a party a#ainst who! an adverse +ud#!ent has been
rendered in one "oru!, see$in# another and possiby "avorabe opinion in another "oru! other
than by appea or specia civi action o" certiorari.
&@
The !ost i!portant "actor in deter!inin# the e7istence o" "oru! shoppin# is the ve7ation
caused the courts and parties5iti#ants by a party who as$s di""erent courts to rue on the sa!e or
reated causes or #rant the sa!e or substantiay the sa!e reie"s. A party, however, cannot be
said to have sou#ht to i!prove his chances o" obtainin# a "avorabe decision or action where no
un"avorabe decision has ever been rendered a#ainst hi! in any o" the cases he has brou#ht
be"ore the courts.
,C
In not a "ew cases, this )ourt has aid down the yardstic$ to deter!ine whether a party
vioated the rue a#ainst "oru! shoppin# as where the ee!ents o" itis pendentia are present or
where a "ina +ud#!ent in one case wi a!ount to res +udicata in the other.
,&
Stated di""erenty,
there !ust be between the two cases 0a2 identity o" parties8 0b2 identity o" ri#hts asserted and
reie"s prayed "or, the reie" bein# "ounded on the sa!e "acts8 and 0c2 that the identity o" the two
precedin# particuars is such that any +ud#!ent rendered in the other action wi, re#ardess o"
which party is success"u, a!ount to res +udicata in the action under consideration.
,,

A. N; F;4UA S';PPINB
It is si#ni"icant to note that the action "ied be"ore the )S)5)A4 is ad!inistrative in
nature, deain# as it does with the proper ad!inistrative iabiity, i" any, which !ay have been
incurred by respondent "or the co!!ission o" the acts co!pained o". In star$ contrast, the case
"ied be"ore the ;""ice o" the Deputy ;!buds!an "or (uDon, which incidentay was not initiated
by herein petitioners but by the co!painant teachers, deas with the cri!ina accountabiity o"
the respondent "or vioation o" the Anti5Bra"t and )orrupt Practices Act. Un!ista$aby, the rue
on "oru! shoppin# woud "ind no proper appication since the two cases athou#h based on the
sa!e essentia "acts and circu!stances do not raise identica causes o" action and issues.
,-
It
woud, there"ore, be absurd to re%uire the certi"ication o" "oru! shoppin# to be attached to the
17
Golden ;&read <n'tt'n3 0ndustr'es, 0nc. v. N.RC, 30( #CRA 37 *1!!!+.
18
.e/son, -r. v. 78ce of t&e 7mbudsman, G.R. No. 134!!0, Apr'l 7, 000, 331 #CRA 7.
1!
=an3>o #'lan3an Development =an> v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110480, -une !, 001,
3"0 #CRA 34 %&'l'pp'ne 1conom'c ?one Aut&or't/ v. ,'an5on, G.R. No. 13100, -ul/ 0,
000, 33" #CRA 30!
0
Ro2as v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 13!337, Au3ust 1(, 001, 3"3 #CRA 07.
1
:analo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141!7, 7ctober 8, 001, 3"" #CRA 7(4 @n'ted
Res'dents of Dom'n'can 6'll, 0nc. v. Comm'ss'on on t&e #ettlement of .and %roblems, G.R. No.
13(!4(, :arc& 7, 001, 3(3 #CRA 78

=ened'cto v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 1(3(!, #eptember 4, 001, 3"4 #CRA 334.
3
Aul'enco v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131"!, -une 10, 1!!!, 308 #CRA 0".
"or!a char#e "ied be"ore the )S), "or the evi sou#ht to be curbed by the proscription a#ainst
"oru! shoppin# is si!py not e7tant in the instant case.
EFFECT OF DISMISSAL OF CRIMINAL CASE IN THE OM'UDSMAN ON THE
ADMINISTRATIVE CASE IN CSC
As de"ined, substantia evidence is such reevant evidence as a reasonabe !ind !ay
accept as ade%uate to support a concusion. This is di""erent "ro! the %uantu! o" proo" re%uired
in cri!ina proceedin#s which necessitates a "indin# o" #uit o" the accused beyond reasonabe
doubt. The ;!buds!an, in orderin# the withdrawa o" the cri!ina co!paints a#ainst
respondent was si!py sayin# that there is no evidence su""icient to estabish her #uit beyond
reasonabe doubt which is a condition sine %ua non "or conviction. Er#o, the dis!issa o" the
cri!ina case wi not "orecose ad!inistrative action a#ainst respondent.
DISMISSAL ,ARRANTED
A tod, the )ourt hods that respondent*s #uit in the ad!inistrative case has been
su""icienty estabished and pursuant to e7istin# )ivi Service 4ues and 4e#uations, her
dis!issa "ro! the service is warranted.
EFFECT OF RESIGNATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE CASE
In cases o" resi#nation or retire!ent, it has been said that the #overn!ent sti retains
discipinary +urisdiction over the e!poyee concerned "or his !isdeeds co!!itted durin# his
incu!bency. The underyin# reason has been ceary e7postuated in the case o" PereD vs. Abiera,
:3 S)4A -C,E
GIn other words, the +urisdiction that was ;urs durin# the ti!e o" the "iin# o" the
ad!inistrative co!paint was not ost by the !ere "act that the respondent pubic o""icia had
ceased to be in o""ice durin# the pendency o" his case. 7 7 7 The )ourt retains its +urisdiction
either to pronounce the respondent o""icia innocent o" the char#es or decare hi! #uity thereo".
A contrary rue woud be "rau#ht with in+ustices and pre#nant with dread"u and dan#erous
i!pications. I" ony "or reasons o" pubic poicy, this )ourt !ust assert and !aintain its
+urisdiction over !e!bers o" +udiciary and other o""icias under its supervision and contro "or
acts per"or!ed in o""ice which are ini!ica to the service and pre+udicia to the interests o" the
iti#ants and the #enera pubic.G
Needess to say, it woud reward unscrupuous individuas si!iary situated as 4uba,
who woud ta$e advanta#e o" the absence o" e!poy!ent reationship to deiberatey and
conscientiousy perpetrate "raud and other i!posturin#s a#ainst the #overn!ent, $nowin# that
they coud easiy evade prosecution on the "i!sy #round that they were not yet not #overn!ent
e!poyees when they co!!itted the sa!e. This is si!py unacceptabe, to say the east. At the
ti!e when the #overn!ent is serious in its crusade to eradicate a "or!s o" #ra"t and corruption
in every noo$ and cranny o" the bureaucracy, it woud be the hei#ht o" anachronis! to uphod the
contention o" 4uba. Indeed, the )o!!ission woud be stri$in# a disastrous and "ata bow to the
ca!pai#n, i" it were to aow 4uba to #o scot5"ree.
Truth to te, the re%uire!ent o" #ood behavior in pubic o""ice is not circu!scribed by
ti!e. I" ony to vivi"y the dictu! that a pubic o""ice is a pubic trust, then #ood behavior shoud
be understood as a continuin# re%uisite that !ust e7ist be"ore, durin# and even a"ter pubic
e!poy!ent. 04UHA, (iibeth N., 4esoution No. C,C?,&, June &-, ,CC,2
DISCIPLINING AUTHORIT* AS COMPLAINANT- PROSECUTOR AND .UDGE /ONE
AT THE SAME PERSON0
. . . . In the very nature o" thin#s, any investi#ation by the e!poyer o" any ae#ed cause "or
discipinary punish!ent o" an e!poyee wi have to be conducted by the e!poyer hi!se" or
his duy desi#nated representative8 and the investi#ation cannot be thwarted or nui"ied by
ar#uin# that it is the e!poyer who is accuser, prosecutor and +ud#e at the sa!e ti!e. . ./
0Foster Parents Pan Internationa6Hico vs. De!etriou, &3, S)4A 9C98 see aso )ruD vs. )S),
-1C S)4A :9C2
)ivi Service )o!!ission was the co!painant, the Prosecutor and the Jud#e, a at the sa!e
ti!e
DUE PROCESS
A F;4AA( )'A4BE <AS ISSUED <IT';UT T'E AANDAT;4I P4E(IAINA4I
INFESTIBATI;N
In the procedure adopted by petitioner, respondents were preventivey suspended in the sa!e
"or!a char#es issued by the "or!er without the atter $nowin# that there were pendin#
ad!inistrative cases a#ainst the!. It is true that prior notice and hearin# are not re%uired in the
issuance o" a preventive suspension order. 0Carabeo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 178000
and 178003, December 4, 00!, "07 #CRA 3!4.+ 'owever, considerin# that respondents
were preventivey suspended in the sa!e "or!a char#es that we now decare nu and void, then
their preventive suspension is i$ewise nu and void. As the ad!inistrative proceedin#s invoved
in this case are void, no dein%uency or !isconduct !ay be i!puted to respondents and the
preventive suspension !eted the! is baseess. )onse%uenty, respondents shoud be awarded
their saaries durin# the period o" their un+usti"ied suspension.
In particuar, due process in ad!inistrative proceedin#s has been reco#niDed to incude the
"oowin#E 0&2 the ri#ht to actua or constructive notice to the institution o" proceedin#s which
!ay a""ect a respondent>s e#a ri#hts8 0,2 a rea opportunity to be heard personay or with the
assistance o" counse, to present witnesses and evidence in one>s "avor, and to de"end one>s
ri#hts8 0-2 a tribuna vested with co!petent +urisdiction and so constituted as to a""ord a person
char#ed ad!inistrativey a reasonabe #uarantee o" honesty as we as i!partiaity8 and 032 a
"indin# by said tribuna which is supported by substantia evidence sub!itted "or consideration
durin# the hearin# or contained in the records or !ade $nown to the parties a""ected. 0Aontoya v.
Faria, supra ar ?3&5?3,8 Fabea v. )A, -3: Phi @3C, @9,5@9- 0&@@12.2
Indeed, the )S) 4ues does not speci"icay provide that a "or!a char#e without the re%uisite
prei!inary investi#ation is nu and void. 'owever, as ceary outined above, upon receipt o" a
co!paint which is su""icient in "or! and substance, the discipinin# authority sha re%uire the
person co!pained o" to sub!it a )ounter5A""idavit6)o!!ent under oath within three days "ro!
receipt. The use o" the word GshaG %uite obviousy indicates that it is !andatory "or the
discipinin# authority to conduct a prei!inary investi#ation or at east respondent shoud be
#iven the opportunity to co!!ent and e7pain his side. As can be #eaned "ro! the procedure set
"orth above, this is done prior to the issuance o" the "or!a char#e and the co!!ent re%uired
therein is di""erent "ro! the answer that !ay ater be "ied by respondents. )ontrary to
petitioner*s cai!, no e7ception is provided "or in the )S) 4ues. Not even an indict!ent in
"a#ranti as cai!ed by petitioner.
This is true even i" the co!painant is the discipinin# authority hi!se", as in the present case.
To co!py with such re%uire!ent, he coud have issued a !e!orandu! re%uirin# respondents to
e7pain why no discipinary action shoud be ta$en a#ainst the! instead o" i!!ediatey issuin#
"or!a char#es. <ith respondents* co!!ents, petitioner woud have propery evauated both
sides o" the controversy be"ore !a$in# a concusion that there was a pri!a "acie case a#ainst
respondents, eadin# to the issuance o" the %uestioned "or!a char#es. It is noteworthy that the
very acts sub+ect o" the ad!inistrative cases ste!!ed "ro! an event that too$ pace the day
be"ore the "or!a char#es were issued. It appears, there"ore, that the "or!a char#es were issued
a"ter the soe deter!ination by the petitioner as the discipinin# authority that there was a pri!a
"acie case a#ainst respondents. 0<INST;N F. BA4)IA vs AA4I; I. A;(INA and A(HE4T
A. FE(AS);, B.4. No. &91-?-, Au#ust &C, ,C&C2