UP Law F2021 102 Rivera v.

CSC
Administrative Law Adjudication of cases – Due 1995 Vitug
process - Cardinal primary rights

SUMMARY

George Rivera of Land Bank of the Philippines was charged with several violations stemming from his acts
with Wynner, a company with loan application with LBP. He was found guilty by the LBP of the acts charged.
Upon appeal with Merit Systems Protection Board (MPSB), he was found guilty of only acts prejudicial to the
best interest of the service (one out of two charges). An MR filed by LBP, on which the Chairman of MPSB
Thelma Gaminde participated (who was later promoted CSC Commissioner), was denied by MPSB. CSC
reversed MPSB and upheld the original decision of LBP. Upon MR, Gaminde, as Commissioner, participated
again. On his appeal before the SC, Rivera averred denial of due process when Gaminde participated in the
CSC resolution of his MR, since Gaminde already participated as Chairman of MPSB on its earlier resolution
of LBP’s MR. SC sided with Rivera, and remanded the case back to the CSC to hear Rivera’s MR, this time
without participation of Gaminde.

FACTS

 Petitioner George Rivera was the Manager of Corporate Banking Unit of Land Bank of the Philippines
(LBP);
 He was charged with several offenses1 before the CSC;
 It sprung from his “dealing” with Marketing Manager of Wynner which had loan application with the
LBP, saying he could facilitate the processing, approval and release of the loan if he be given 10%
commission out of the P3M proceeds;
 He also allegedly received from William Lao, an investor in Wynner: (1) P200k pocket money for his
US trip, and (2) funds for his tickets, hotel accommodation and pocket money for his Hong Kong trip;
 He was also charged with acting as consultant to Lao and Wynner without prior authority from the
Office of the President (OP);
 He was put under preventive suspension once charges were filed;
 LBP found him guilty of grave misconduct and acts prejudicial to the best interest of the service in
accepting employment from a client of the bank after due investigation with corresponding penalty of
forced resignation, without separation benefits and gratuities;
 Merit Systems Protection Board (MPSB) modified the decision upon appeal. Rivera was held guilty
only of acts prejudicial to the best interest of the service, with penalty of 1 year suspension only. It
upheld its decision upon filing of MR by LBP;
 On appeal in CSC, the original decision of LBP was sustained. An MR by Rivera was denied;
 Rivera now filed the present petition before the SC, averring that CSC acted with grave abuse of
discretion in issuing its questioned resolution, averring that he was denied due process when one of
the commissioners2, took part: (1) earlier in her capacity when she was the Board Chairman of the
MSPB (on LBP MR); and (2) as Commissioner of CSC, on Rivera’s MR.
 OSG sided with Rivera.

1
(1) Dishonesty; (2) Receiving for personal use of fee, gift or other valuable thing, in the course of official duties; (3) Committing acts
punishable under the Anti-Graft laws; (4) Pursuit of private business vocation or profession without the permission required by Civil
Service Rules and regulations; (5) Violation of Memorandum Circular No. 1025, Office of the President, dated November 25, 1977; and
(6) Violation of Res. 87-A, R.A. No. 337; resulting to misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service
2
Hon. Thelma P. Gaminde
 RATIO

W/N Rivera was denied due process

Yes.

The Court cited two earlier decided cases with analogous circumstance, in arriving with its conclusion that
Rivera was denied due process.:

a. Zambales Chromite Mining Company v. CA

The decision of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources was set aside by this court after it
had been established that the case concerned an appeal from the Secretary's own previous decision
he handed down while he was yet the incumbent Director of Mines, calling the act of the Secretary a
"mockery of administrative justice”.

b. Anzaldo v. Clave
The Court similarly struck down a decision of Presidential Executive Assistant Jacobo Clave over a
resolution of the Civil Service Commission, in which he, then concurrently its chairman, had earlier
"concurred”.

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 if we are to give full
meaning and consequence to a fundamental aspect of due process. The argument that Commissioner
Gaminde did not participate in MSPB's initial decision is unacceptable. It is not denied that she did
participate, indeed has concurred, in MSPB's resolution denying the motion for reconsideration of MSPB's
decision of 29 August 1990.

FALLO

WHEREFORE, CSC Resolution No. 94-1276 is SET ASIDE, and the case is REMANDED to respondent Civil
Service Commission for the resolution, sans the participation of Commissioner Thelma P. Gaminde, of herein
petitioner's motion for reconsideration of CSC Resolution No. 93-1189. No costs. SO ORDERED.