Rivera vs. Civil Service Commission

A reviewing officer on appeal must be other than the officer whose decision is under review; participation by the same officer in both capacities violates due process and invalidates the review. Applied to an administrative appeal from the MSPB to the CSC, concurrence in the MSPB's denial of reconsideration disqualified the commissioner from participating in the CSC's resolution of the motion for reconsideration of the appellate decision.

George I. Rivera was the Manager of Corporate Banking Unit I of the Land Bank of the Philippines, the government bank that charged him administratively. The Merit Systems Protection Board acted as the intermediate reviewing body over the bank's disciplinary decision, while the Civil Service Commission exercised final administrative appellate review. Thelma P. Gaminde successively served as MSPB Board Chairman and then as CSC Commissioner during the proceedings.

George I. Rivera was Manager of Corporate Banking Unit I of the Land Bank of the Philippines. On the basis of affidavits of William Lao and Jesus C. Perez, the LBP President charged him on 01 February 1988 with dishonesty, receiving for personal use a fee, gift or other valuable thing in connection with official duties, committing acts punishable under the Anti-Graft laws, pursuing private business or profession without required Civil Service permission, and violation of Res. 87-A, R.A. No. 337, resulting in misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

According to the charges, Perez was Marketing Manager of Wynner, which had a pending loan application with LBP. Rivera allegedly told Perez he could facilitate processing, approval and release of the loan for a ten percent (10%) commission and subsequently received a P200,000.00 commission out of P3,000,000.00 loan proceeds. From Lao, who had substantial investments in Wynner, Rivera supposedly received approximately P20,000.00 pocket money for a trip to the United States, plus additional funds for plane ticket, hotel accommodations and pocket money for another trip to Hongkong.

Rivera was further charged with having served and acted, without prior authority required by Civil Service Rules and Memorandum Circular No. 1025 of the Office of the President, as personal consultant of Lao and as consultant in various companies where Lao had investments. He allegedly drew and received salaries and allowances of approximately P20,000.00 a month evidenced by vouchers of Edge Apparel, Inc., J & M Clothing Corporation, and JME Trading Corporation. Upon filing of the charges, he was placed under preventive suspension effective 19 February 1988.

After formal investigation, LBP held Rivera guilty of grave misconduct and acts prejudicial to the best interest of the service in accepting employment from a client of the bank and thereby receiving salaries and allowances, and of transgressing the Anti-Graft prohibition, imposing forced resignation without separation benefits and gratuities. On appeal, the MSPB modified the decision to guilt only for acts prejudicial to the best interest of the service and reduced the penalty to one year suspension as a first offense. On further appeal, the CSC in Resolution No. 93-1189 dismissed Rivera's appeal, set aside the MSPB decision, and found him guilty of grave misconduct with penalty of dismissal, which denial of reconsideration in Resolution No. 94-1276 gave rise to the certiorari petition.

• Sufficiency of Finding for Dismissal: Petitioner averred that the CSC committed grave abuse of discretion in imposing the capital penalty of dismissal on the basis of unsubstantiated findings and conclusions.
• Due Process – Disqualification of Reviewer: Petitioner strongly asserted denial of due process because Hon. Thelma P. Gaminde, who had participated as Board Chairman of the MSPB in acting on LBP's motion for reconsideration, also took part as CSC Commissioner in resolving petitioner's motion for reconsideration with the CSC.

• Due Process – Identity of Reviewing Officer: Whether Commissioner Thelma P. Gaminde's participation as CSC Commissioner in resolving petitioner's motion for reconsideration, after having participated as MSPB Board Chairman in the MSPB's action on reconsideration, denied petitioner due process so as to invalidate the CSC review.

• Due Process – Identity of Reviewing Officer: Yes. Due process was violated because the reviewing officer was not other than the officer whose prior action was under review, requiring the setting aside of CSC Resolution No. 94-1276 and remand for resolution without Commissioner Gaminde's participation.

• Due Process – Identity of Reviewing Officer: The controlling principle is that review of a subordinate officer's decision must not be a farce, and the reviewing officer must perforce be other than the officer whose decision is under review; otherwise there would be no real review, only a biased view by one who, being human, would not admit mistake in the first view. Applied here, it was not denied that Commissioner Gaminde concurred in the MSPB resolution denying reconsideration of the MSPB decision and later participated in CSC Resolution No. 94-1276 denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration of CSC Resolution No. 93-1189. That dual participation called for her total inhibition from resolving Rivera's appeal to give full meaning to due process, notwithstanding the argument that she did not participate in the earlier MSPB decision itself. The conclusion was supported by Zambales Chromite Mining Company vs. Court of Appeals, where review by the same officer acting as Director of Mines and then as Secretary was condemned as a mockery of administrative justice, and by Anzaldo vs. Clave, which struck down action by an officer who had earlier concurred as CSC Chairman.

• Due process – impartial review; reviewing officer must differ from officer reviewed — Review of a subordinate's decision must be real and not a farce. The reviewing officer must be other than the officer whose decision is under review, for the reviewing view would otherwise inevitably be biased by unwillingness to admit prior mistake. In this case, a commissioner who concurred in the MSPB's denial of reconsideration was disqualified from participating in the CSC's resolution of the motion for reconsideration of the appellate decision, and her participation warranted setting aside the CSC resolution and remanding for resolution without her.

• "In order that the review of the decision of a subordinate officer might not turn out to be a farce, then reviewing officer must perforce be other than the officer whose decision is under review; otherwise, there could be no different view or there would be no real review of the case." — States the controlling due process rationale for disqualifying a reviewer who previously decided the same case, as applied to Commissioner Gaminde's dual role.
• "The decision of the reviewing officer would be a biased view; inevitably, it would be the same view since being human, he would not admit that he was mistaken in his first view of the case." — Explains why identity between reviewer and reviewed officer renders review illusory and violative of administrative due process.
• "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." — Applies the rule to order remand without Gaminde's participation.

• Zambales Chromite Mining Company vs. Court of Appeals, 94 SCRA 261 — Followed as controlling precedent that a decision on appeal by the same officer who rendered the appealed decision is a mockery of administrative justice and must be set aside.
• Anzaldo vs. Clave, 119 SCRA 353 — Followed to invalidate action by Presidential Executive Assistant Jacobo Clave over a CSC resolution in which he had earlier concurred as CSC Chairman, analogous to Gaminde's dual participation.
• Magpale vs. Civil Service Commission, 215 SCRA 398 — Applied by the CSC as basis for rejecting LBP's appeal and resolving only Rivera's appeal; cited in the decision to explain the procedural posture before the CSC.

• Section 12, Rule XVIII, Revised Civil Service Rules — Invoked by LBP as basis for finding Rivera guilty of grave misconduct and acts prejudicial to the best interest of the service for accepting employment from a bank client and receiving salaries and allowances.
• Section 3, paragraph (d), Republic Act No. 3019, as amended (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) — Invoked by LBP and sustained by the CSC as the prohibition transgressed by accepting regular monthly allowances from a private firm client of the bank, deemed grave misconduct as a wanton violation of law.
• Memorandum Circular No. 1025, Office of the President of the Philippines — Cited in the charges as the source of the prior authority allegedly required before serving as personal consultant of Lao and consultant of companies where Lao had investments.

Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, Puno and Mendoza, JJ., concur. Kapunan, J., took no part. Feliciano, J., is on leave.