Vertudes vs Bureau of Immigration

FACTS: This is a petition for review by certiorari the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the decision of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) finding petitioner guilty of grave misconduct and dismissing her from government service. Petitioner Teresita L. Vertudes was a fingerprint examiner at the Alien Registration Division of the Bureau of Immigration (BI). In a facsimile letter, certain Peng Villas, a news editor of the Philippine Weekly Newspaper, referred to then BI Commissioner Rufus Rodriguez the complaints of private respondent Julie Buenaflor, Amy Cosino and Manuelito Lao, against petitioner.According to Villas, private respondent Buenaflor complained of having been convinced by petitioner into paying the total amount of P79,000.00 in exchange for the processing of her visa, passport and other travel documents for Japan. Private respondent delivered to petitioner Security Bank (SB) Check in the amounts of P30,000.00 and P20,000.00, respectively, and cash worth P29,000.00. However, no visa was delivered. Private respondent insisted that petitioner return her money, to no avail. Villas also referred to Commissioner Rodriguez the complaint of Lao who allegedly told him that he paid P60,000.00 to petitioner in exchange for a Chinese Visa and a passport for Taiwan. Likewise, Villas referred Cosino’s complaint that the latter collected from Virfinia Dumbrique, Jaime Santos Flores and Mariano Evangelista, the amounts of P20,000.00 each, upon petitioner's word that they would be in exchange for tourist visas. Both Lao and Cosino claimed that the promised passport and visas did not materialize and despite many requests for the return of the amounts paid to petitioner, she refused to comply. Allegedly, "Vertudez threatened them that they cannot force her to pay back the said amount as she has the back up [of] higher BID officials."

ISSUE: Whether or not the right to cross-examination as a vital element of due process was violated.

HELD: The right of a party to confront and cross-examine opposing witnesses in a judicial litigation, be it criminal or civil in nature, or in proceedings before administrative tribunals with quasi-judicial powers, is a fundamental right which is part of due process. However, the right is a personal one which may be waived expressly or impliedly by conduct amounting to a renunciation of the right of cross-examination. Thus, where a party has had the opportunity to cross-examine a witness but failed to avail himself of it, he necessarily forfeits the right to cross-examine and the testimony given on direct examination of the witness will be received or allowed to remain in the record.