Letter to Attorney

Dear Attorney,

Good morning. I am seeking clarification regarding a concern about administrative hearings. Specifically, how many times a respondent can fail to appear before a complainant may be granted a Certificate of Failure to Appear (CFA).

In a recent case, the respondent failed to attend the first summons. Another notice was sent, asking the respondent to explain their absence from the hearing. I would appreciate your guidance on the procedural steps involved in this situation, including the implications of continued non-appearance by the respondent.

Thank you for your insights and expertise.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Citizen

Legal Discussion: Understanding Non-Appearance in Administrative Hearings in the Philippines

Non-appearance by a respondent in an administrative hearing raises questions about due process and the rights of both parties. This article delves into the rules and procedures that govern non-appearance in such settings, the legal remedies available to complainants, and the issuance of a Certificate of Failure to Appear (CFA). The discussion reflects the relevant legal frameworks and jurisprudence under Philippine law.

1. Legal Framework for Administrative Hearings

Administrative hearings are quasi-judicial proceedings typically governed by agency-specific rules and the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS) or equivalent agency regulations. Such rules are designed to ensure due process and fair resolution of disputes.

The principles of administrative due process, outlined in Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations (G.R. No. L-46496, 1940), require:

The right to notice;
The right to a hearing;
The opportunity to present evidence;
The tribunal’s decision to be based on substantial evidence.

Respondent non-appearance must be addressed within this framework to balance the complainant’s right to relief and the respondent’s right to due process.

2. Summons and Initial Non-Appearance

A summons is the initial notice sent to a respondent, informing them of a complaint and scheduling a hearing. Summons typically include:

The nature of the complaint;
The date, time, and venue of the hearing;
Instructions for submitting a written explanation or answer.

When a respondent does not appear at the first scheduled hearing, the administrative tribunal or hearing officer assesses whether proper service of the summons was effected. Proper service requires:

Personal Service: Delivering the summons directly to the respondent.
Substituted Service: Delivering it to a competent person at the respondent’s residence or office if personal service is not possible.
Service by Publication: As a last resort, in cases where the respondent cannot be located.

If the respondent fails to appear despite proper service, the tribunal typically issues a Notice to Explain or schedules a second hearing. This safeguards the respondent’s right to due process.

Relevant Case Law

In Calo v. Civil Service Commission (G.R. No. 112581, 1995), the Supreme Court emphasized that proper service of notice is crucial to the validity of proceedings. Even if the respondent defaults, failure to serve notice voids subsequent actions.

3. Second Non-Appearance and Show Cause Orders

If the respondent again fails to appear, the tribunal may issue a Show Cause Order, requiring the respondent to explain their repeated absence. The respondent’s failure to comply with this order may lead to the issuance of a Certificate of Failure to Appear (CFA) or its equivalent.

The CFA is a procedural declaration that allows the complainant to pursue alternative remedies, such as:

Elevating the case to the agency head or appropriate higher authority;
Proceeding with an ex parte hearing (a hearing conducted without the respondent's participation).

Legal Basis for Ex Parte Proceedings

Rule 9, Section 3 of the Rules of Court (supplementary to administrative rules) provides for ex parte proceedings when the adverse party fails to appear or respond despite due notice. Ex parte decisions are rendered based on the evidence presented by the complainant.

4. Considerations Before Granting a CFA

Administrative tribunals exercise caution before issuing a CFA or proceeding ex parte. They evaluate:

Evidence of Proper Service: As discussed, summons must be properly served.
Absence of Justifiable Cause: The respondent must fail to provide a reasonable explanation for their absence. Illness, force majeure, or lack of notice are examples of valid excuses.
Consistency with Due Process: Even in the respondent’s absence, the tribunal must ensure decisions are based on substantial evidence presented by the complainant.

Example of Justifiable Non-Appearance

In Co v. Intermediate Appellate Court (G.R. No. 67909, 1993), the Supreme Court ruled that unavoidable circumstances, such as serious illness, justified a party’s failure to appear. The proceedings were remanded to afford the respondent due process.

5. Remedies for Complainants

If the CFA is issued, complainants may proceed with available remedies, such as:

Filing a motion for ex parte resolution;
Requesting the tribunal to issue a default judgment based on the complainant’s evidence.

However, tribunals are reminded to maintain neutrality and avoid undue prejudice against absent respondents.

6. Practical and Jurisprudential Insights

When Can a CFA Be Issued?

There is no specific rule prescribing the exact number of times a respondent may fail to appear before a CFA is granted. However, jurisprudence suggests that tribunals consider the following:

Reasonableness: Issuing a CFA after two or more absences is common practice.
Notice and Opportunity to Explain: Ensuring that the respondent has been given a fair chance to justify their non-appearance.

Potential Consequences for Respondents

Issuance of a CFA may lead to a respondent losing the opportunity to contest the allegations. In such cases, complainants may secure a favorable judgment based on unrefuted evidence.

Rights of the Respondent

Respondents retain the right to file a motion to set aside a default judgment if they can demonstrate:

Lack of notice;
Justifiable reasons for their absence;
Substantial defenses to the complaint.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that procedural rules should not be applied rigidly to defeat substantive justice.

7. Recommendations for Parties

For Complainants:

Ensure the respondent is properly served with notices and summons.
Document all efforts to notify the respondent.
Present clear and convincing evidence during ex parte proceedings.

For Respondents:

Respond promptly to notices and summons.
File motions or attend hearings to preserve procedural rights.
If unable to attend, submit a written explanation or motion to reschedule.

8. Conclusion

Non-appearance in administrative hearings is a serious issue that implicates both procedural and substantive rights. While tribunals are empowered to proceed ex parte or issue a CFA after repeated absences, they must adhere to due process principles to ensure fairness for both complainants and respondents.

Understanding the procedural intricacies and remedies available under Philippine law equips parties to navigate administrative hearings effectively. Whether you are a complainant seeking redress or a respondent protecting your rights, adherence to procedural rules and timely action are paramount.