Gannapao v. CSC (G.R. No. 180141; May 31, 2011)
CASE DIGEST: RIMANDO A. GANNAPAO, Petitioner, vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (CSC), THE CHIEF OF PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, THE SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, ARIEL G. RONQUILLO, J. WALDEMAR V. VALMORES, JOSE F. ERESTAIN, JR., and KARINA CONSTANTINO-DAVID, ALL NAMED INDIVIDUALS IN THEIR CAPACITY AS OFFICERS OF THE CSC, RICARDO BARIEN, INOCENCIO M. NAVALLO, LIGAYA M. GANDO, LEA MOLLEDA, FE R. VETONIO, PRIMO V. BABIANO, PATIGA J., JOSE TAEZA, G. DELOS SANTOS, LOSBAÑES, W., AVE PEDIGLORIO and CRESENCIA ROQUE, Respondents. (G.R. No. 180141; May 31, 2011)
FACTS: In April 1995, UWTC started operating MMTCs buses. At about the same time, petitioner was allegedly employed by Atty. Gironella, the general manager appointed by the Board of Directors of UWTC, as his personal bodyguard.
Respondents further alleged that upon orders of Atty. Gironella, the buses regularly driven by them were confiscated by a group led by petitioner.Armed with deadly weapons petitioner and his group intimidated and harassed respondents. Barien, et al. thus prayed for the preventive suspension of petitioner, the confiscation of his firearm and his termination.
The complaint passed an investigation with The Inspector General, Internal Affairs Office (TIG-IAO) of the PNP. In his answer, petitioner denied the allegations of the complaint and averred that it was his twin brother, Reynaldo Gannapao, who worked as messenger at UWTC.In a memorandum, it was recommended that the complaint be dismissed.
Subsequently,National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) Memorandum was issued, and a summary hearing on the complaint was conducted.
Petitioner moved to dismiss the complaint. The same was denied.
PNP Chief Sarmiento rendered his Decision finding petitioner guilty as charged and suspending him for three months from the police service without pay.
Petitioners MR was likewise denied, thus, he elevated the case to the NAPOLCOM National Appellate Board.His appeal, however, was dismissed.
Aggrieved, petitioner brought his case to the DILG but his appeal was denied.
Petitioner then appealed to the CSC, it was dismissed but the penalty of suspension was increased to dismissal from service.
Petitioner thus filed with the CA a Petition for Review but it was later on denied because petitioner cannot claim denial of due process since he was given ample opportunity to present his side.
CA denied petitioners motion for reconsideration. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Was petitioner denied due process?
FACTS: In April 1995, UWTC started operating MMTCs buses. At about the same time, petitioner was allegedly employed by Atty. Gironella, the general manager appointed by the Board of Directors of UWTC, as his personal bodyguard.
Respondents further alleged that upon orders of Atty. Gironella, the buses regularly driven by them were confiscated by a group led by petitioner.Armed with deadly weapons petitioner and his group intimidated and harassed respondents. Barien, et al. thus prayed for the preventive suspension of petitioner, the confiscation of his firearm and his termination.
The complaint passed an investigation with The Inspector General, Internal Affairs Office (TIG-IAO) of the PNP. In his answer, petitioner denied the allegations of the complaint and averred that it was his twin brother, Reynaldo Gannapao, who worked as messenger at UWTC.In a memorandum, it was recommended that the complaint be dismissed.
Subsequently,National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) Memorandum was issued, and a summary hearing on the complaint was conducted.
Petitioner moved to dismiss the complaint. The same was denied.
PNP Chief Sarmiento rendered his Decision finding petitioner guilty as charged and suspending him for three months from the police service without pay.
Petitioners MR was likewise denied, thus, he elevated the case to the NAPOLCOM National Appellate Board.His appeal, however, was dismissed.
Aggrieved, petitioner brought his case to the DILG but his appeal was denied.
Petitioner then appealed to the CSC, it was dismissed but the penalty of suspension was increased to dismissal from service.
Petitioner thus filed with the CA a Petition for Review but it was later on denied because petitioner cannot claim denial of due process since he was given ample opportunity to present his side.
CA denied petitioners motion for reconsideration. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Was petitioner denied due process?
Did the CA correctly affirm the CSC's decision modifying the penalty from suspension to dismissal from service?HELD: We have held that due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or, as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain ones side or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.As long as a party was given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he was not denied due process. Here, it is clear that petitioner was afforded due process since he was given his fair opportunity to present his case. As a matter of fact, petitioner actively participated in the proceedings thus negating his contention that he was unfairly deprived of his chance to present his case.
We hold that the CA did not err in affirming the CSC ruling which modified the penalty imposed by the PNP Director General as affirmed by the DILG Secretary, from three months suspension to dismissal. Under Memorandum Circular No. 93-024(Guidelines in the Application of Penalties in Police Administrative Cases), the following acts of any member of the PNP are considered Grave Offenses:
x x x C.The following are Grave Offenses: x x x x Serious Irregularities in the Performance of Duties. This is incurred by any member of the PNP who shall:
x x x x c.act as bodyguard or security guard for the person or property of any public official, orprivate person unless approved by the proper authorities concerned. x x x x The CSC found that petitioner indeed worked for Atty. Gironella as the latters bodyguard-- at least during the relevant period, from April 1995 up to December 1995 when Barien, et al. filed their verified complaint before the Inspectorate Division
We hold that the CA did not err in affirming the CSC ruling which modified the penalty imposed by the PNP Director General as affirmed by the DILG Secretary, from three months suspension to dismissal. Under Memorandum Circular No. 93-024(Guidelines in the Application of Penalties in Police Administrative Cases), the following acts of any member of the PNP are considered Grave Offenses:
x x x C.The following are Grave Offenses: x x x x Serious Irregularities in the Performance of Duties. This is incurred by any member of the PNP who shall:
x x x x c.act as bodyguard or security guard for the person or property of any public official, orprivate person unless approved by the proper authorities concerned. x x x x The CSC found that petitioner indeed worked for Atty. Gironella as the latters bodyguard-- at least during the relevant period, from April 1995 up to December 1995 when Barien, et al. filed their verified complaint before the Inspectorate Division
