VITUG; "AN 4% 1&&/
N'#!)@etition for review on certiorari F'c()
> @etitioner 'ivera was the *anager of Corporate #anking (nit " of the Land #ank of the @hilippines 3L#@5. On the basis of the affidavits of Lao and @ere$! petitioner was charged by the L#@ @resident with having committed the following offenses/
3,5 Fishonesty0
385 'eceiving for personal use of fee! gift or other valuable thing! in the course of official duties or in connection therewith when such fee! gift!
or other valuable thing is given by any person in the hope or expectation of receiving a favor or better treatment than that accorded other persons0
3+5 Committing acts punishable under the &nti>Graft laws0
35 @ursuit of private business vocation or profession without the permission re7uired by Civil Service 'ules and regulations0
3;5 iolation of 'es. J?>&! '.&. No. ++?0 resulting to misconduct and conduct pre:udicial to the best interest of the service.
> 'ivera allegedly told @ere$! the *arketing *anager of <ynner which had a pending loan application with L#@! that he could facilitate the processing! approval and release of the loan if he would be given a ten percent 3,Q5 commission. 'ivera was said to have subse7uently
received a @8!. commission out of the @+!!. loan proceeds from the L#@. Arom Lao! who had substantial investments in
<ynner! 'ivera supposedly likewise received the amount of approximately @8!. pocket money for his trip to the (nited States!
as well as additional funds for his plane ticket! hotel accommodations and pocket money for still another trip to 6ongkong.
> 'ivera was further charged with! among other things! having served and acted! without prior authority re7uired by Civil Service 'ules and
*emorandum Circular No. ,8; of the Office of the @resident of the
@hilippines! as the personal consultant of Lao and as consultant in various companies where Lao had investments. 6e drew and received salaries and allowances approximately @8!. a month evidenced by vouchers of 9dge &pparel! "nc.! K V * Clothing Corporation! and K*9
rading Corporation.
> Once the charges were filed! 'ivera was placed under preventive suspension. &fter a formal investigation! the L#@ held 'ivera guilty of grave misconduct and acts pre:udicial to the best interest of the service in accepting employment from a client of the bank and in thereby receiving salaries and allowances in violation of Section ,8! 'ule R"""!
of the 'evised Civil Service 'ules. 6e was also found to have transgressed the prohibition in Section +! paragraph 3d5! of the &nti>Graft and Corrupt @ractices &ct 3'epublic &ct No. +,-! as amended5. he penalty of forced resignation! without separation benefits and gratuities!
was thereupon imposed on 'ivera. On appeal! the decision was modified by the *erit Systems @rotection #oard 3*S@#5 which held 'ivera guilty only of committing acts pre:udicial to the best interest of the service. he L#@ filed a motion for the reconsideration of *S@#Es decision. "n its resolution! the *S@# denied the motion.
> 'ivera and the L#@ both appealed to the CSC. he CSC dismissed the appeal of 'espondent George 'ivera! finding him guilty of Grave
*isconduct for which he is meted out the penalty of dismissal from the service. 'ivera filed a motion for reconsideration! which the CSC denied in its 'esolution No. ->,8?B.
> @etitioner averred that the CSC committed grave abuse or discretion in imposing the capital penalty of dismissal on the basis of unsubstantiated finding and conclusions. he SC Court resolved to dismiss the petition for petitionerEs failure to sufficiently show that CSC acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing its 7uestioned resolution. 'ivera filed a motion for reconsideration of the CourtEs dismissal of the petition! now strongly asserting that he was denied due process when Gaminde! who earlier participated in her capacity as the #oard Chairman of the *S@#
when the latter had taken action on L#@Es motion for reconsideration!
also took part! this time as a CSC Commissioner! in the resolution of petitionerEs motion for reconsideration with the CSC.
I((#!) <ON petitioner was denied due process when Gaminde! who earlier participated in her capacity as the #oard Chairman of the *S@#
when the latter had taken action on L#@Es motion for reconsideration!
also took part! this time as a CSC Commissioner! in the resolution of petitionerEs motion for reconsideration with the CSC
H!*+)Y9S.
> "n Xambales Chromite *ining Company vs. Court of &ppeals! the decision of the Secretary of &griculture and Natural 'esources was set aside by this Court after it had been established that the case concerned an appeal from the SecretaryEs own previous decision he handed down while he was yet the incumbent Firector of *ines. Calling the act of the Secretary a mockery of administrative :ustice! the Court said/
%"n 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 review0 otherwise! there could be no different view or there would be no real review of the case. he decision of the reviewing officer would be a biased view0 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.
> Given the circumstances in the case at bench! it should have behooved Commissioner Gaminde to inhibit herself totally from any participation in resolving 'iveraEs appeal to CSC if we are to give full meaning and conse7uence to a fundamental aspect of due process. he argument that Commissioner Gaminde did not participate in *S@#Es decision of 8- &ugust ,-- is unacceptable. "t is not denied that she did participate!
indeed has concurred! in *S@#Es resolution of + *arch ,--! denying the motion for reconsideration of *S@#Es decision of 8- &ugust ,--.
cdrep
Dispositive Resolution set aside!case remanded to C#C
AMERICAN INTER:FASHION CORPORATION v. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT% GARMENTS TETILE EPORT -OARD GLORIOUS
SUN FASHION GARMENTS MANUFACTURING CO. 7PHILS.8% INC.
16 SCRA 40&; GUTIERRE>% "R.; M' 23% 1&&1 N'#!) A55!'*
F'c()
> GLO'"O(S was found guilty of dollar>salting and misdeclaration of importations by the G9# and! as a result of which! the export 7uotas allocated to it were cancelled. Soon after the rendition of the G9#
decision! GLO'"O(S filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court! contending that its right to due process of law was violated! and that the G9# decision was not supported by substantial evidence.
> Giving credence to the allegations of respondent GLO'"O(S! the Court issued a resolution ordering G9# to conduct further proceedings in the administrative case against respondent GLO'"O(S.
> 6owever! GLO'"O(S filed a manifestation of its intention to withdraw the petition which the Court granted
> GLO'"O(S filed another motion to dismiss with pre:udice! which was duly noted by the Court in a resolution.
> *ore than 8 years later! GLO'"O(S filed with the G9# a petition for the restitution of its export 7uota allocation and re7uested for a reconsideration of the G9# decision dated &pril 8?! ,-J.
> GLO'"O(S again alleged that the charges against it were not supported by evidence.
> *oreover! it alleged that the G9# decision canceling its export 7uotas was rendered as a result of duress! threats! intimidation and undue influence exercised by former *inister 'oberto . Ongpin in order to transfer GLO'"O(SE export 7uotas to *arcos crony>owned
corporations Fe Soleil &pparel *anufacturing Corporation 1FS&2 and &"AC.
> GLO'"O(S further alleged that it was coerced by *r. 'oberto Ongpin to withdraw its petition and to enter into :oint venture agreements paving the way for the creation of FS& and petitioner &"AC which were allowed to service GLO'"O(SE export 7uotas and to use its plant facilities!
machineries and e7uipment.
> G9# denied the petition of GLO'"O(S. &n appeal was then taken to the Office of the @resident.
> &t this point! &"AC sought to intervene in the proceedings and filed its opposition to GLO'"O(SE appeal claiming that the G9# decision has long become final! and that a favorable action on the appeal would result in the forfeiture of the export 7uotas which were legally allocated to it.
> he Office of the @resident ruled in favor of GLO'"O(S! finding the proceedings before the G9# in ,-J irregular! and remanded the case to G9# for further proceedings.
> he *' of &"AC was subse7uently denied.
I((#!(/
,. <ON the OAA"C9 OA 69 @'9S"F9N CO**"9F G'&9 &#(S9 OA F"SC'9"ON and
8. <ON the final :udgment constitutes res :udicata on the ground that the final :udgment in was a :udgment on the merits.
H!*+)
1. NO."n finding that G9# proceedings were irregular! the O@ didn=t commit G&F as G9# indeed violated the right to due process of Glorious. G9# failed to disclose evidence used by it in rendering the resolution against Glorious Sun. he decision penned by Feputy 9xecutive Secretary *agdangal #. 9lma and the resolution penned by &cting Feputy 9xecutive Secretary *ariano Sarmiento "" are not tainted in the slightest by any grave abuse of discretion. hey outline in detail why the private respondent was denied due process when its export 7uotas were cancelled by G9# he findings are supported by the records.
RATIO) Evi+!$c! 9$ !c9+ =#( ! #** +i(c*9(!+ 9 h! 5'i!(.
2. NO. > he dismissal of the first petition was clearly based on a technical matter rather than on the merits of the petition. 6ence! the dismissal of the petition with the factual issues hanging in mid>air cannot!
under the circumstances! constitute res :udicata.
R!'(9$i$/
> Aor a :udgment to be a bar to a subse7uent case! the following re7uisites must concur/
. . . 3,5 it must be a final :udgment0 385 the court which resolved it had :urisdiction over the sub:ect matter and the parties0 3+5 it must be a :udgment on the merits0 and 35 there must be identity between the two
cases! as to the parties! sub:ect matter and cause of action.
> he well>entrenched principle is that a :udgment on the merits is one rendered after a determination of which party is right! as distinguished from a :udgment rendered upon preliminary or final or merely technical point. 3Feang v. "&C5.
> he protestation of Glorious Sun of non>disclosure of evidence had been effectively remedied by the subse7uent accommodation by the G9# of its re7uest for copies of the relevant documents.
> he petitioner claims that the subse7uent disclosure of the documents by G9# to Glorious Sun in ,-J? cured the defect of non>disclosure of evidence in ,-J under the constitutional provision of due process enunciated in the landmark case of &ng ibay v. C"' and other subse7uent cases.
> he documents used by the G9# in its ,-J decision and referred to in the ,-J? decision as being intact relates to what the G9# labeled as Focuments used by G9# and &dditional Focuments which! as earlier discussed! were either not disclosed to &ppellant for being privileged or unmarked as exhibits or not presented in evidence.
> &t any rate! the conclusions of G9# as to the excessiveness of &ppellantEs import prices drew a controverting statement from its own
'aw *aterials "mportation 'egulation Fivision!
> Aindings of administrative agencies are accorded respect and finality!
and generally should not be disturbed by the courts. his general rule!
however! is not without exceptions.
> &s recently reiterated! it is :urisprudentially settled that absent a clear!
manifest and grave abuse of discretion amount to want of :urisdiction! the findings of the administrative agency on matters falling within its competence will not be disturbed by the courts.
> Specifically with respect to factual findings! they are accorded respect!
if not finality! because of the special knowledge and expertise gained by these tribunals from handling the specific matters falling under their :urisdiction.
> Such factual findings may be disregarded only if they are not supported by evidence0 where the findings are initiated by fraud!
imposition or collussion0 where the procedures which lead to the factual findings are irregular0 when palpable errors are committed0 or when grave abuse of discretion arbitrarines or capriciousness is manifest.
3*apa v. &rroyo! ,?; SC'& ?B 1,-J-25
> "n the case at bar! the petitioner was never given the chance to present its side before its export 7uota allocations were revoked and its officers suspended. <hile it is true that such allocations as alleged by the #oard are mere privileges which it can revoke and cancel as it may deem fit!
these privileges have been accorded to petitioner for so long that they have become impressed with property rights especially since not only do these privileges determine the continued existence of the petitioner with assets of over @J!!. but also the livelihood of some ?
workers who are employed by the petitioner and their families .
>Ainally! &merican "nter>Aashion is hardly the proper party to 7uestion the
*alacaang decision. "t was incorporated after the incidents in this case happened. "t was created obviously to be the recipient of export 7uotas arbitrarily removed from the rightful owner. "t was se7uestered precisely because of the allegation that it is a crony corporation which profited from an act of in:ustice inflicted on another private corporation.
Dispositive/ *A' is G'&N9F. he instant petition is F"S*"SS9F. he 7uestion decision and resolution of the Office of the @resident are hereby &AA"'*9F.
eparate $pinion FELICIANO>concurring/
" concur in the result reached by the Court! that is! that petitioner &merican "nter>fashion Corporation has failed to show any grave abuse
of discretion or act without or in excess of :urisdiction on the part of the public respondent Office of the @resident in rendering its decision in O@
Case No. +?J, dated ? September ,-J-.
PEFIANCO V. MORAL
322 SCRA 43&; -ELLOSILLO; "'$ 1&% 2000 N'#!)@etition for review of decision of C&
F'c()
> Sec @efianco of F9CS seeks to nullify C& decision.
> 9x>Sec Gloria filed complaint against *oral! Chief Librarian of National Library for dishonesty! grave misconduct and conduct pre:udicial to the best interest of the service. he complaint charged respondent *oral with the pilferage of some historical documents.
> FoK Special @rosecutor represented Sec Gloria in the administrative case. *oral was represented by her private counsel. Sec Gloria issued resolution finding *oral guilty. She was ordered dismissed.
> *oral did not appeal but filed a @etition for @roduction of F9CS
"nvestigation Committee 'eport. 6er petition was twice denied.
> *oral instituted an action formandamus and in:unction before regular courts against Sec Gloria praying that she be furnished a copy of the F9CS "nvestigation Committee 'eport and that the F9CS Secretary be en:oined from enforcing the order of dismissal until she received a copy of the said report.
> Secretary Gloria moved to dismiss the mandamus case principally for lack of cause of action! but the trial court denied his motion. hus! he elevated the case to the Court of &ppeals on certiorari. C& sustained
C.
> Sec Gloria filed instant petition. Sec Gloria was replaced by Sec
@efianco.
ISSUES
,. <ON the order of the C is proper
8. <ON *oral is entitled to a copy of the 'eport H!*+),. NO.
> Section +! 'ule ,B! of the 8F Rules of Civil Procedure mandatorily re7uires that the resolution on a motion to dismiss should clearly and distinctly state the reasons therefor.
> he challenged Order of the trial court dated 8+ &pril ,--? falls short of
the re7uirements prescribed in 'ule ,B. he Order merely discussed the general concept of mandamus and the trial court=s :urisdiction over the rulings and actions of administrative agencies without stating the basis why petitioner=s motion to dismiss was being denied.
> Kudges should take pains in crafting their orders! stating therein clearly and comprehensively the reasons for their issuance! which are necessary for the full understanding of the action taken. <here the court itself has not stated any basis for its order! to be very strict in re7uiring a prior motion for reconsideration before resort to higher courts on certiorari may be had! would be to expect too much. Since the :udge himself was not precise and specific in his order! a certain degree of liberality in exacting from petitioner strict compliance with the rules was :ustified.
8. NO.
>Mandamus is employed to compel the performance! when refused! of a ministerial duty! this being its main ob:ective. "t does not lie to re7uire anyone to fulfill a discretionary duty. "t is essential to the issuance of a writ of mandamus that petitioner should have a clear legal right to the thing demanded and it must be the imperative duty of the respondent to perform the act re7uired.
> "n her petition for mandamus! respondent miserably failed to demonstrate that she has a clear legal right to the 2EC# 'nvesti&ation Committee Report and that it is the ministerial duty of petitioner F9CS Secretary to furnish her with a copy thereof.
> @rimarily! respondent did not appeal to the Civil Service Commission the F9CS resolution dismissing her from the service. #y her failure to do so! nothing prevented the F9CS resolution from becoming final.
> *oreover! there is no law or rule which imposes a legal duty on petitioner to furnish respondent with a copy of the investigation report.
On the contrary! it was held in RuiG v. 2rilon that a respondent in an administrative case is not entitled to be informed of the findings and recommendations of any investigating committee created to in7uire into charges filed against him. 6e is entitled only to the administrative decision based on substantial evidence made of record! and a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges and the evidence presented against her during the hearings of the investigation committee.
'espondent no doubt had been accorded these rights.
> *ore importantly! the F9CS resolution is complete in itself for purposes of appeal to the Civil Service Commission! that is! it contains sufficient findings of fact and conclusion of law upon which respondent=s removal from office was grounded.
Disposition@etition is granted.
NAPOLCOM V POLICE CHIEF INSPECTOR LEONARDO -ERNA-E G.R. N9. 12&&14; PARDO; M' 12% 2000
N'#!) &ppeal from the Fecision of the Court of &ppeals F'c()
> & newspaper published an article saying that #ernabe headed a syndicate encashing treasury warrants of @C soldiers! policemen!
firemen and :ail personnel who were already dead! on awol! suspended and separated from the service.
> @resident 'amos instructed the F"LG Secretary to conduct an investigation and prosecute respondent if necessary. he Secretary referred the directive to the @N@ Firector General! who ordered the Criminal "nvestigation Service Command to investigate the charges.
> 'espondent was informed of the article and SHSupt. 'omeo &cop ordered him to explain through affidavit.
> 'espondent submitted his affidavit alleging that all the cases against
> 'espondent submitted his affidavit alleging that all the cases against