Case Digest (G.R. No. 187854)
Facts:
Ray Peter O. Vivo v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR), G.R. No. 187854, November 12, 2013, the Supreme Court En Banc, Bersamin, J., writing for the Court. The petitioner is Ray Peter O. Vivo; the respondent is PAGCOR.The petitioner was employed by PAGCOR beginning September 9, 1986 and served as Managing Head of its Gaming Department at the time of the events. On February 21, 2002, Teresita S. Ela, Senior Managing Head of PAGCOR’s Human Resources Department, served Vivo a letter charging him with gross misconduct, rumor‑mongering, conduct prejudicial to the company, and loss of trust and confidence; the letter directed him to submit a written explanation and placed him under preventive suspension.
Vivo’s counsel responded on February 26, 2002, contesting the show‑cause memorandum and the preventive suspension. The Corporate Investigation Unit (CIU) summoned Vivo to an administrative inquiry scheduled March 15, 2002; at his request the CIU conducted the inquiry at his residence, took his statement in a question‑and‑answer format, and served him a memorandum of charges that cited statements of PAGCOR personnel. When counsel requested copies of those witness statements, PAGCOR refused, stating that Vivo had opportunity to confront and answer the charges during the inquiry. Vivo filed a written answer on March 26, 2002.
After the CIU submitted its report to PAGCOR’s Adjudication Committee, the Committee summoned Vivo for clarificatory questioning on May 8, 2002. Vivo’s counsel sought a re‑scheduling because he would be unavailable; the Adjudication Committee denied the request on the ground that counsel’s presence was not necessary. On May 15, 2002 Vivo was informed by letter that the PAGCOR Board, in its May 14, 2002 meeting, had resolved to dismiss him from the service; a motion for reconsideration was denied.
Vivo appealed the dismissal to the Civil Service Commission (CSC). In its April 11, 2007 resolution the CSC found that PAGCOR violated Vivo’s right to due process, set aside the dismissal and remanded the case to PAGCOR for reinvestigation within three months. After the CSC denied PAGCOR’s motion for reconsideration, PAGCOR elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA).
On February 27, 2009 the CA reversed the CSC, holding that PAGCOR had accorded procedural due process, and remanded the case to t...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the petitioner denied procedural due process in PAGCOR’s administrative proceedings?
- Did PAGCOR’s failure to furnish copies of the Board resolutions authorizing the dismissal render the dismissal invalid?
- Did PAGCOR’s refusal to re‑schedule the Adjudication Committee meeting, thereby preventing counsel’s attendance, violate the petitioner’s right to b...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)