G.R. No. 135863 - People vs. Lorica y Manjarez

Ray Peter O. Vivo was employed by the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) on September 9, 1986, and served as Managing Head of its Gaming Department.

On February 21, 2002, Teresita S. Ela, Senior Managing Head of PAGCOR’s Human Resources Department, advised the petitioner he was charged with gross misconduct, rumor-mongering, conduct prejudicial to company interests, and loss of trust and confidence; instructed him to submit a written explanation; and placed him under preventive suspension.

February 26, 2002: Petitioner’s counsel challenged the propriety of the show-cause memorandum and the preventive suspension.
March 14–15, 2002: He was summoned by PAGCOR’s Corporate Investigation Unit (CIU) to an administrative inquiry, held at his residence at his request. His statement was taken in Q&A format and he was furnished a memorandum of charges based on PAGCOR personnel’s statements; his counsel’s request for copies of those statements was denied.

March 26, 2002: Petitioner submitted his written answer. The CIU submitted its investigation report to PAGCOR’s Adjudication Committee.
May 8, 2002: Summoned before the Adjudication Committee; counsel’s motion to reschedule was denied on the ground that counsel’s presence was unnecessary; counsel moved for reconsideration.
May 15, 2002: Petitioner received a letter from Ela informing him the PAGCOR Board of Directors, in its May 14, 2002 meeting, resolved to dismiss him from the service.

Petitioner appealed to the CSC. On April 11, 2007, the CSC held PAGCOR violated his right to due process (absence of Board resolution) and set aside his dismissal; remanded for reinvestigation within three months. The CSC denied its motion for reconsideration on August 1, 2007.

PAGCOR elevated the case to the CA. On February 27, 2009, the CA reversed the CSC decision, ruling that the petitioner had been accorded procedural due process; remanded the case to the CSC to resolve the merits—whether the dismissal was for cause. The CA denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on May 11, 2009.

Did the Court of Appeals err in concluding that the petitioner’s right to due process was not violated in the administrative proceedings?
Is the CA’s reversal of CSC Resolutions Nos. 070732 (April 1, 2007) and 071485 (August 1, 2007) contrary to the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service and settled jurisprudence?
Did PAGCOR’s failure to furnish copies of the Board resolutions authorizing the dismissal, and its refusal to allow counsel’s presence at the Adjudication Committee meeting, constitute fatal defects in the proceedings?