G.R. No. 180141 ; May 31, 2011
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.

FACTS

On December 22, 1995, respondents Ricardo Barien, et al., stockholders and board members of United Workers Transport Corp. (UWTC), filed a verified complaint before the PNP Inspectorate Division charging petitioner SPO1 Rimando A. Gannapao with Grave Misconduct and Moonlighting. They alleged that in April 1995, petitioner was employed as a personal bodyguard by Atty. Roy G. Gironella, the general manager of UWTC, and that petitioner, leading an armed “task force,” intimidated and harassed regular bus drivers and conductors, confiscated buses, and took over their operation. Petitioner denied the allegations, claiming it was his twin brother, Reynaldo Gannapao, who worked at UWTC. After a pre-charge investigation, a PNP Chief Service Inspector recommended dismissal of the complaint based on an affidavit of desistance.
Subsequently, a summary hearing was conducted under new rules, docketed as Adm. Case No. 09-97. Petitioner moved to dismiss on grounds of res judicata, citing the earlier recommendation, but the PNP Chief denied the motion. On November 26, 1997, the PNP Chief found petitioner guilty of Serious Irregularities in the Performance of Duties and sentenced him to three months suspension without pay. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. His appeals to the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) National Appellate Board and the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) were likewise dismissed, with the DILG Secretary affirming the suspension.
Petitioner then appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC). On April 3, 2002, the CSC dismissed his appeal but modified the penalty from three months suspension to dismissal from the service. The CSC found petitioner’s defense of a twin brother unsubstantiated by competent evidence like a birth certificate and noted that affidavits of desistance submitted after the PNP decision did not absolve him of administrative liability. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the CSC Resolution. Petitioner now appeals to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

1. Whether petitioner was denied due process in the administrative proceedings.
2. Whether the penalty of dismissal from the service imposed by the CSC was proper.

RULING

1. On the issue of due process: NO, petitioner was not denied due process.
The Supreme Court held that the essence of due process in administrative proceedings is the opportunity to explain one’s side or seek a reconsideration. The records show petitioner was accorded this right. He filed an Answer to the complaint during the pre-charge investigation. He received a subpoena from the Office of the Legal Service, PNP, for the hearing of Adm. Case No. 09-97. He actively participated by filing a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion for Reconsideration of the PNP Chief’s decision. He subsequently appealed to the NAPOLCOM, DILG, and CSC. Given these numerous opportunities to be heard, there was no denial of procedural due process.
2. On the issue of the penalty: YES, the penalty of dismissal was proper.
The Court sustained the CSC’s modification of the penalty. The CSC has the authority, under the Administrative Code of 1987 and its Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, to review decisions of subordinate agencies and impose the appropriate penalty. The PNP is part of the civil service, and the CSC has appellate jurisdiction over administrative disciplinary cases involving PNP members. The CSC correctly found the offense—serving as a private bodyguard and using his authority and firearm to harass civilians—to be a grave offense constituting Serious Irregularities in the Performance of Duties. Under the relevant rules, this warrants the severe penalty of dismissal. The Court found no merit in petitioner’s claim of the mitigating circumstance of length of service, as the gravity of the offense, which eroded public trust in the police force, outweighed any such claim.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated April 27, 2007 and Resolution dated October 10, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 70605 are AFFIRMED.