January 4, 1995
Ponente: Vitug, J.
FACTS
George I. Rivera was the Manager of Corporate Banking Unit I of the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP). Sometime in the late 1980s, he dealt with one of LBP's clients, Wynner, regarding the latter's pending loan application with the bank. Rivera promised Jesus Perez, Wynner's marketing manager, that he could facilitate the processing, approval and release of the loan if he would be given a ten percent (10%) commission.
When the loan was approved, Rivera received a P200,000.00 commission out of the P3,000,000.00 loan proceeds. William Lao, an investor at Wynner, also gave Rivera P20,000.00 pocket money for the latter's trip to the US, as well as additional funds for his plane ticket, hotel accommodations and pocket money for still another trip to HK.
On top of these, while still working at LBP, Rivera also served as personal consultant of Lao in various companies where the latter had investments. For his consulting services, Rivera drew and received salaries and allowances amounting to approximately P20,000.00 a month as evidenced by vouchers.
When LBP got wind of Rivera' violations, he was charged with the following: (a)Dishonesty; (b) Receiving for personal use of fee, gift or other valuable thing, in the course of official duties or in connection therewith when such fee, gift, or other valuable thing is given by any person in the hope or expectation of receiving a favor or better treatment than that accorded other persons; (c) Committing acts punishable under the Anti-Graft laws; (d) Pursuit of private business vocation or profession without the permission required by Civil Service Rules and regulations; and (e) Violation of Res. 87-A, R.A. No. 337, resulting in misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
Once the charges were filed, Rivera was placed under preventive suspension. After a formal investigation, the LBP held Rivera guilty of grave misconduct and acts prejudicial to the best interest of the service in accepting employment from a client of the bank and in thereby receiving salaries and allowances in violation of the Revised Civil Service Rules. He was also found to have transgressed the prohibition in Section 3, paragraph (d), of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019, as amended). The penalty of forced resignation, without separation benefits and gratuities, was thereupon imposed on Rivera.
On appeal, the decision was modified by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) which upheld the guilt of Rivera. But the MSPB noted that since this was the first offense on Garcia's record, the penalty of forced resignation without separation benefits and gratuities should be reduced to one (1) year suspension.
LBP subsequently filed an appeal before the CSC, which held that LBP's original decision (i.e., forced resignation and without separation benefits and gratuities) should be upheld.
Hence, the instant petition.
RULING
Petition granted.
Whether Garcia was denied due process at the CSC. – YES.
Initially, the Court dismissed Garcia's petition for his failure to sufficiently show that CSC acted with grave abuse of discretion. Rivera later filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's dismissal of the petition, now strongly asserting that he was denied due process.
Rivera was claiming that Hon. Thelma P. Gaminde, who earlier participated in her capacity as the Board Chair of the MSPB when the latter had taken action on LBP's motion for reconsideration, also took part, this time as a CSC Commissioner, in the resolution of Rivera's motion for reconsideration with the CSC. While still Board Chair of the MSPB, Commissioner Gaminde concurred in the resolution reducing Rivera's punishment from forced resignation to one-year suspension. As CSC Commissioner, she also took part in the resolution of the same case, this time reinstating the original punishment of forced resignation and the forfeiture of benefits.
Zambales Chromite Mining Company vs. Court of Appeals: In order that the review of the decision of a subordinate officer might not turn out to be a farce, then reviewing officer must perforce be other than the officer whose decision is under review; otherwise, there could be no different view or there would be no real review of the case.
The decision of the reviewing officer would be a biased view; inevitably, it would be the same view since being human, he would not admit that he was mistaken in his first view of the case.
Given the circumstances in the case at bench, it should have behooved Commissioner Gaminde to inhibit herself totally from any participation in resolving Rivera's appeal to CSC. Inhibiting herself would have given full meaning and consequence to a fundamental aspect of due process.
DOCTRINE
Due process requires that an officer of an
administrative agency who took part in the resolution of an issue in his
capacity as officer of such agency should inhibit from taking part once
again, in an altogether different capacity, in the resolution of the
same issue.
