G.R. No. 187854; November 12, 2013
RAY PETER O. VIVO, Petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION (PAGCOR), Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Ray Peter O. Vivo, PAGCOR’s Managing Head of its Gaming Department, was administratively charged with gross misconduct, rumor-mongering, conduct prejudicial to the company, and loss of trust and confidence. He was placed under preventive suspension and required to submit a written explanation. An administrative inquiry was conducted at his residence where he was furnished a memorandum of charges detailing the accusations. His counsel’s request for copies of witness statements was denied. Subsequently, PAGCOR’s Adjudication Committee summoned Vivo for a meeting. His counsel moved to reschedule, but the request was denied on the ground that counsel’s presence was unnecessary. The PAGCOR Board of Directors subsequently resolved to dismiss Vivo from service.
Vivo appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), which ruled that his right to due process was violated because he was dismissed without being furnished a copy of the Board Resolution detailing the collegial decision. The CSC set aside the dismissal and ordered a reinvestigation. PAGCOR elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed the CSC, finding that Vivo had been accorded procedural due process. The CA remanded the case to the CSC to determine the appeal on the merits regarding the existence of a valid cause for dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that petitioner Vivo was not denied procedural due process in the administrative proceedings that led to his dismissal.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision. The Court held that administrative due process is satisfied when the person is notified of the charges and given a reasonable opportunity to present their side. It is not always coterminous with judicial due process and does not require a formal trial-type hearing. The essence is the opportunity to be heard.
The Court found that Vivo was amply accorded this right. He received a show-cause memorandum detailing the charges, participated in an administrative inquiry where he gave his statement, and was allowed to submit a written answer. The denial of his counsel’s request to reschedule the Adjudication Committee meeting did not violate due process, as the right to counsel in administrative proceedings is not absolute and the committee validly exercised its discretion to proceed to ensure an expeditious resolution. The failure to furnish a copy of the Board Resolution was not a fatal defect, as he was duly informed of the decision through a letter from the Senior Managing Head. The requirements of due process—notice, hearing, and an impartial tribunal—were substantially complied with. The case was remanded to the CSC to resolve the appeal on the substantive issue of whether the dismissal was for a valid cause.