Case Summary (G.R. No. 187013)
Key Dates
Employment began: September 9, 1986. Charges and preventive suspension notice: February 21, 2002. Administrative inquiry and statements: March 15, 2002 (inquiry conducted at petitioner’s residence); answer filed March 26, 2002. Adjudication Committee appearance: May 8, 2002 (request to reschedule denied). Board resolution advising dismissal: communicated by letter dated May 15, 2002. CSC resolution setting aside dismissal: April 11, 2007; CSC denial of motion for reconsideration: August 1, 2007. CA decision reversing CSC: February 27, 2009. Supreme Court decision: November 12, 2013. Applicable constitutional framework: 1987 Philippine Constitution.
Applicable Law and Controlling Standard
The case applies the due process guarantees under the 1987 Constitution as construed in administrative law. The governing standard for administrative due process, as repeatedly cited, requires at minimum notice of the charge and a reasonable opportunity to be heard; a formal, trial-type hearing is not always required and technical rules of procedure are not strictly applied. Precedents relied upon include Ledesma v. Court of Appeals and other decisions cited in the record that articulate the twin-notice rule and the flexible, functional nature of administrative due process.
Procedural Background — PAGCOR Investigation and Proceedings
PAGCOR administratively charged the petitioner with gross misconduct, rumor-mongering, conduct prejudicial to company interests, and loss of trust and confidence, placed him under preventive suspension, and convened its Corporate Investigation Unit (CIU) to take his statement. The CIU held the inquiry at the petitioner’s request at his residence; he was furnished a memorandum of charges, and his counsel requested but was denied copies of witness statements. The CIU submitted an investigation report to the Adjudication Committee, which summoned petitioner to answer clarificatory questions; petitioner’s counsel sought a continuance because of unavailability, which the Committee denied on the ground counsel’s presence was not necessary. The PAGCOR Board resolved to dismiss petitioner; that decision was communicated to him.
CSC Proceedings and Ruling
Petitioner appealed to the Civil Service Commission. The CSC, in its April 11, 2007 resolution, found that PAGCOR violated petitioner’s right to due process, specifically citing the absence of “the corresponding Board Resolution that should have set out the collegial decision of the PAGCOR Board of Directors,” and set aside the dismissal. The CSC remanded the case to PAGCOR for completion of reinvestigation within three months.
CA Ruling and Remand
PAGCOR appealed to the Court of Appeals. The CA reversed the CSC on February 27, 2009, finding that petitioner had been accorded procedural due process during PAGCOR’s administrative proceedings. The CA remanded the case to the CSC to determine the petitioner’s appeal on the merits, notably whether the dismissal was for cause.
Issues Presented on Appeal to the Supreme Court
Petitioner’s principal contentions were that: (1) the CA erred in concluding that his right to due process was not violated; (2) PAGCOR’s failure to furnish copies of the Board resolutions authorizing dismissal and of statements used against him constituted a fatal defect; and (3) PAGCOR’s refusal to reschedule the Adjudication Committee meeting denied his right to counsel and thus deprived him of due process.
Supreme Court Ruling — Disposition
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review and affirmed the CA decision. The Court directed the CSC to determine the petitioner’s appeal on the merits (specifically whether dismissal was for cause) and ordered the petitioner to pay the costs of suit.
Supreme Court Analysis — Due Process in Administrative Proceedings
The Court reiterated that administrative due process requires notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard but does not always require a formal, trial-type hearing. Citing Ledesma and other authorities, the Court emphasized that the minimum requirements are filing of charges and reasonable opportunity to answer. The Court found that petitioner received the requisite notices (initial charge memorandum and subsequent notice of Board action), participated in the CIU inquiry (held at his residence), was furnished the memorandum of charges, submitted a written answer, appeared before the Adjudication Committee to answer clarificatory questions, and appealed to the CSC — constituting adequate observance of procedural due process.
Analysis — Failure to Furnish Board Resolutions and Investigation Statements
The Court held that PAGCOR’s failure to furnish petitioner copies of the Board resolutions did not negate their existence or invalidate their contents where petitioner’s pleadings explicitly admitted that dismissal was effected through board resolutions and he was informed of the subject-matter. The Court treated a missing or unauthorized board resolution as rendering the dismissal unauthorized but not necessarily illegal; unauthorized acts can be ratified. Regarding PAGCOR’s refusal to provide copies of witness statements, the record showed that petitioner had the memorandum of charges and an opportunity to confront and answer the allegations during the CIU inquiry, and the denial of those documentary copies did not establish a fatal denial of procedural fairness under the administrative due process standard applied.
Analysis — Right to Counsel
The Court explained that the right to counsel in administrative investigations is not absolute in the sense of requiring counsel’s presence at every investigatory session;
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 187013)
Case Caption, Citation and Decision Authorship
- Supreme Court decision reported at 721 Phil. 34, En Banc, G.R. No. 187854, promulgated November 12, 2013.
- Title: Ray Peter O. Vivo, Petitioner, vs. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR), Respondent.
- Decision penned by Justice Bersamin.
- Judgment: Petition for review on certiorari denied; Court of Appeals decision dated February 27, 2009 affirmed.
- Concurring: Sereno, C.J., and Justices Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo‑De Castro, Brion, Peralta, Del Castillo, Abad, Villarama, Jr., Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas‑Bernabe, and Leonen.
Antecedents and Employment History
- Petitioner Ray Peter O. Vivo was employed by PAGCOR beginning September 9, 1986.
- At the time of dismissal, petitioner served as PAGCOR’s Managing Head of its Gaming Department.
Administrative Charges, Preventive Suspension and Notice
- February 21, 2002: Petitioner received a letter from Teresita S. Ela, Senior Managing Head, Human Resources Department, advising:
- He was being administratively charged with gross misconduct, rumor‑mongering, conduct prejudicial to the interest of the company, and loss of trust and confidence.
- He should submit a written explanation of the charges.
- He was being placed under preventive suspension.
- February 26, 2002: Petitioner’s counsel replied to Ela’s letter, challenging the propriety of the show‑cause memorandum and the basis for preventive suspension.
Administrative Inquiry Before PAGCOR’s CIU and Adjudication Committee
- March 14, 2002: Petitioner received a summons to appear before PAGCOR’s Corporate Investigation Unit (CIU) on March 15, 2002.
- March 15, 2002: At petitioner’s request the CIU conducted the inquiry at his residence; his statement was taken in question‑and‑answer format.
- During the inquiry petitioner was furnished the memorandum of charges detailing the accusations and acts/omissions constituting the alleged offenses; the memorandum was based on statements of PAGCOR personnel with personal knowledge.
- Petitioner’s counsel requested copies of the statements underpinning the memorandum of charges; PAGCOR refused on the ground that petitioner had been afforded sufficient opportunity to confront, hear, and answer the charges during the administrative inquiry.
- March 26, 2002: Petitioner was allowed to submit his written answer to the memorandum of charges.
- CIU submitted its investigation report to PAGCOR’s Adjudication Committee.
- Adjudication Committee summoned petitioner to appear on May 8, 2002 to address questions; petitioner’s counsel requested rescheduling because counsel would be unavailable; committee denied request stating counsel’s presence was not necessary; counsel moved for reconsideration of the denial.
Board Action and Dismissal
- May 15, 2002: Petitioner received a letter from Ela informing him that PAGCOR’s Board of Directors had resolved on May 14, 2002 to dismiss him from the service.
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the Board’s dismissal was denied by PAGCOR; petitioner appealed the dismissal to the Civil Service Commission (CSC).
Civil Service Commission Proceedings and Resolution
- CSC Resolution dated April 11, 2007: CSC found that PAGCOR violated petitioner’s right to due process because petitioner was ousted from office without the corresponding Board Resolution that should have set out the collegial decision of the PAGCOR Board of Directors.
- CSC order: Appeal of Ray Peter O. Vivo granted; letters dated May 15, 2002 and June 5, 2002 issued by Teresita S. Ela were set aside.
- CSC remanded the case to PAGCOR with instruction to complete reinvestigation within three months from receipt of the CSC resolution.
- CSC denied PAGCOR’s motion for reconsideration; PAGCOR elevated the case to the Court of Appeals.
Court of Appeals Proceedings and Ruling
- February 27, 2009: Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the CSC resolution, finding that petitioner had been accorded procedural due process by PAGCOR.
- CA remanded the case to the CSC to determine the petitioner’s appeal on the merits, specifically whether the dismissal was for cause.
- May 11, 2009: CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (denial under review to the Supreme Court).
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that petitioner’s right to due process was not violated contravened fundamental rules in administrative due process.
- Whether the Court of Appeals’ setting aside of CSC Resolutions Nos. 070732 (dated April 1, 2007) and 071485 (dated August 1, 2007) was contrary to the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service and settled jurisprudence.
- Whether PAGCOR’s failure to furnish petitioner a copy of the Board Resolutions authorizing his dismissal and denying his motion for reconsideration was a fatal and irreparable defect rendering the dismissal illegal.
- Whether petitioner was denied due process by PAGCOR’s refusal to reschedule the Adjudication Committee meeting so that his counsel could attend, thereby violating his right to be represented by counsel.