G.R. No. 115147. January 4, 1995.
GEORGE I. RIVERA, petitioner, vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner George I. Rivera, Manager of Corporate Banking Unit I of the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), was administratively charged in 1988 for various offenses including dishonesty, graft, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The charges stemmed from allegations that he solicited and received a commission for facilitating a client’s loan and accepted regular salaries and allowances from private corporations, which were clients of the bank, without the required permission. After formal investigation, LBP found him guilty and imposed the penalty of forced resignation. On appeal, the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) modified the decision, finding him guilty only of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and reducing the penalty to one year suspension.
Both parties appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC). In its resolution, the CSC dismissed Rivera’s appeal, set aside the MSPB decision, found him guilty of Grave Misconduct, and meted out the penalty of dismissal. Rivera filed a motion for reconsideration, which the CSC denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Civil Service Commission committed a denial of due process when Commissioner Thelma P. Gaminde, who had previously participated in the MSPB’s resolution denying a motion for reconsideration, also participated in the CSC’s resolution of Rivera’s motion for reconsideration.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the CSC resolution and remanded the case. The Court held that due process was violated by Commissioner Gaminde’s dual participation. While she did not participate in the initial MSPB decision, it was undisputed that she participated, as MSPB Board Chairman, in the MSPB resolution that denied LBP’s motion for reconsideration of the MSPB decision. She later participated, as a CSC Commissioner, in resolving Rivera’s motion for reconsideration of the CSC decision that reviewed the very same MSPB ruling. This situation created a review of one’s own prior action, which is a mockery of administrative justice. Citing precedents like Zambales Chromite Mining Company vs. Court of Appeals, the Court emphasized that for a review to be meaningful and impartial, the reviewing officer must be different from the officer whose decision is under review. To give full meaning to due process, Commissioner Gaminde should have inhibited herself from the CSC proceedings. Consequently, the case was remanded to the CSC for resolution without her participation.