Republic of the Philippines

NEGROS ORIENTAL STATE UNIVERSITY

Kagawasan Avenue, Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental Philippines 6200
Dumaguete City Main Campuses I & II, Bayawan City-Sta. Catalina Campus, Pamplona
Farm, Bais City Campuses I & II, Guihulngan Campus, Siaton Campus, Mabinay
Campus, Phones: (035) 225-4751; (035) 422-7574 Fax: (035) 225-0777 Internet
Homepage: http://www.norsu.edu.ph

22 April 2015
THE HON. BOARD OF REGENTS
Negros Oriental State University
Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental
Through:

HON. MINELLA A. ALARCON

Chairperson-Designate,
The Board of Regents, NORSU
Commissioner, CHED

RE: DR. DON VICENTE C. REAL

Grave Misconduct, Serious Dishonesty,
Falsification of Official Documents and
Gross Insubordination

-------------------------------------------------------/
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
RESPONDENT Dr. Don Vicente C. Real, by himself, comes to this
Honorable Board and most respectfully states, as follows:
1. Timeliness. Although Respondents Counsel received the Resolution
No. 28, S. 2015 of this Honorable Board on 13 February 2015,
Respondent would like to invoke the indulgence of this Board in the
name of substantial justice and equity for the filing of the instant
motion only today because apparently Respondents counsel did not
act on the same nor did the latter seasonably inform him of receipt of
the aforementioned BOR Resolution. In fact, Respondent had
demanded an explanation from his counsel for this inaction and
subsequently he also filed an administrative complaint against him to
the IBP. Copies of the letter and the complaint are hereto attached as
ANNEXES A and B.
Respondent received his copy of the said BOR Resolution No. 28, S.
2015 from his Counsel by electronic mail only on 13 April 2015. He
thus humbly prays that the period for the filing of the relief thereof be
reckoned from said date (again in the interest of substantial justice),
especially that said decision carries with it accessory penalties which
are confiscatory to his retirement benefits and chances of being
reemployed in the government.

Motion for Reconsideration

Page 2 of 6

Respondent has no more interest whatsoever to reclaim his office as

President of NORSU as in fact he already resigned, but he would like
to seek earnest consideration for his dismissal which carries accessory
penalties which prejudiced him, among others, of what he had toiled
for the best years of his life.
2. Grounds for Reconsideration. With utmost respect, Respondent
would like to entreat the Honorable BOR to take a second look at its
resolution/decision and consider that:
A. Jurisdiction and Discretion. Again with utmost respect, it is
submittedthattheHonorableBoardactedwithoutorinexcessof
itsjurisdictionorwithgraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtolack
orexcessofjurisdictionwhenitdisregardedRespondentsbasic
andfundamentalrighttodueprocess.
The first and most fundamental right guaranteed under the Bill of
Rights is the right to due process. Article III, Section 1 of the
Constitution provides that: No person shall be deprived of life,
liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any
person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
In the landmark case of Ang Tibay v. The Court of Industrial
Relations,1 the Supreme Court affirmed that even administrative
cases are covered by the guarantee of due process. The Supreme
Court explained:
The fact, however, that the Court of Industrial Relations
may be said to be free from the rigidity of certain
procedural requirements does not mean that it can, in
justifiable cases before it, entirely ignore or disregard
the fundamental and essential requirements of due
process in trials and investigations of an administrative
character.
The language of the Supreme Courts decision means that, even in
the most justifiable cases of administrative character, the
fundamental and essential requirements of due process must be
observed. In other words, there is no case, whether civil, criminal
or administrative, that will merit the disregard of the fundamental
and essential requirements of due process.
Thus, Respondent is entitled to the fundamental and essential
requirements of due process, even in administrative cases.
In relation to the above, it may kindly be considered that:
AngTibayv.TheCIR,G.R.No.L46496,27February1940.

Motion for Reconsideration

Page 3 of 6

The Formal Investigation Committee had no authority

to continue with the Formal Investigation.
Under Rule 8, Section 30 of the Revised Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, the Formal
Investigation shall be finished within thirty (30) days from
the issuance of the Formal Charge, unless the period is
extended by the Disciplinary Authority in meritorious cases.
In the present case, the Formal Charge was issued on
October 3, 2014.
The Formal Investigation Committee therefore had thirty
(30) days from the issuance of the Formal Charge on
October 3, 2014 or until November 2, 2014 to finish the
Formal Investigation.
The Formal Investigation Committee did not finish its
Formal Investigation by November 2, 2014. Under Rule 8,
Section 30 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in
the Civil Service, only the disciplining authority can extend
the period for the conduct of the Formal Investigation and
only in meritorious cases.
Despite the period having expired and the period not being
validly extended by the disciplining authority, the Formal
Investigation Committee persisted with its Formal
Investigation against petitioner.
By November 17, 2014, the Formal Investigation
Committee was still conducting hearings. During the
hearing on November 17, 2014, the Formal Investigation
Committee undertook to secure an authorization from the
NORSU Board to continue with the Formal Investigation.
Noting the lack of authority of the Formal Investigation
Committee to continue with the Formal Investigation, I was
compelled to file a Manifestation Ex Abundanti Ad Cautela
to put on record that there is no valid authoritization from
the NORSU Board to continue with the Formal
Investigation.
In Montoya v. Varilla,2 the Supreme Court explained that a
decision rendered in disregard of the fundamental right of due
process is void for lack of jurisdiction.

Montoyav.Varilla,G.R.No.180146,18December2008.

Motion for Reconsideration

Page 4 of 6

In the present case, it is immediately apparent that

Respondents basic constitutional rights were violated. The
proceedings before the Honorable Board were made in clear
and blatant disregard of Respondents right to due process
under Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution. The actions of
and the proceedings before the Honorable Board rendered, as
they were, without due process are therefore void for lack of
jurisdiction.
B. Respondents Participation. As University President, Respondent
had no direct participation in the conduct of the procurement,
beyond approving the recommendation of the Universitys Bids
and Awards Committee (BAC). As in any other government office,
it is the BAC that principally handles the procurement process,
namely from the procurement planning to the preparation of the
bidding documents, to the conduct of the pre-procurement
conference, to the actual conduct of the bidding, and to the postqualification and award, among others. Notwithstanding
Respondents indirect role in the procurement process, only him as
NORSU President has been targeted over this supposedly
anomalous procurement.
Particularly, it is confusing that in the formal investigation, only
the Respondent was targeted and that none of the individuals who
had more direct participation in the conduct of the bidding process
were investigated.
Respondent as University President is not a member of the
Universitys Bids and Awards Committee (BAC). Under
government procurement rules, specifically section 12 of Republic
Act No. 9184, it is the BAC that shall be responsible for ensuring
that the Procuring Entity abides by government procurement rules.
By law, it is the Universitys BAC that is responsible for ensuring
that the University abides by government procurement rules. The
University President merely has a minor role in the procurement
process.
C. Numerous Precedents. The truth of the matter is that the same
NORSU BAC procedure as followed in the aforesaid procurement
has been the same process implemented in numerous previous
administrations procurement involving similar circumstances.
On the issue that Respondent as University President entered into a
contract with MARS Laboratory without the NORSU BORs
approval, he honestly believes in good faith that the said BOR
approval was not needed upon entering into the said contract for

Motion for Reconsideration

Page 5 of 6

the reason that the said project was already included in the
approved APP of NORSU BSC, which had an Approved Budget
for the Contract (ABC) of Seven Million Pesos (Php7,000,000.00).
The undersigned was merely following in good faith, the policy or
procedure of the previous University President of NORSU, Dr.
Henry Sojor, in entering into contracts with the winning bidder
without prior approval from the BOR when the project was already
included in the approved APP. In fact, from CY 2004-2012 all
projects, which include among others purchase of goods and
equipments as well as construction and repair of buildings were not
covered by any BOR Resolution appropriating fund and
authorizing said procurement. A copy of the said list is hereto
attached as Annex C. Are all these contracts then entered into by
Dr. Sojor in behalf of NORSU without prior BOR approval during
the previous years, irregular and are unenforceable?
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, by virtue of the foregoing, it is respectfully prayed
that the Honorable NORSU BOR reconsider and vacate its decision in BOR
Resolution No.28 series of 2015, dismissing the Respondent with accessory
penalties of Cancellation of Eligibility, Forfeiture of Retirement Benefits,
and Perpetual Disqualification from Holding Public Office. Other just and
equitable remedies are likewise prayed for.
DON VICENTE C. REAL, Ed.D.
Respondent-Movant
VERIFICATION AND
CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING
I, DR. DON VICENTE C. REAL, of legal age, after having been
sworn, hereby depose and state that:
1.
I prepared the foregoing Motion for Reconsideration to the NORSU
BOR, and which I have read and fully understood.
2.
I hereby affirm that all the factual allegations contained in this Motion
are true and correct of my own personal knowledge and belief, as well as
true and correct on the basis of authentic documents and records in my
possession.
3.
I certify that I have not heretofore commenced any action or filed any
claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial
agency.

Motion for Reconsideration

Page 6 of 6

4.
If I should hereafter learn that any other similar action or claim has
been filed or is pending, I shall report that fact within five (5) days from
knowledge thereof to this Honorable Board.
DON VICENTE C. REAL, Ed.D.
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME this __ day of April
2015, by the affiant who presented his competent evidence of identity,
namely,_____________________issued by_________________with expiry
date on________________.
Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2015.