|
PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING
CORPORATION, Petitioner, -versus- RICHARD SYHONGPAN, Respondent. |
G.R. No. 151030 Present: QUISUMBING, Chairperson, CARPIO, CARPIO MORALES, TINGA, and VELASCO, JR., JJ. Promulgated: |
|
|
|
x
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Assailed via Petition for Review on
Certiorari is the Court of Appeals Decision[1]
of June 20, 2000 reversing the Civil Service Commission Resolution No. 981738 dated July 2, 1998 and
No. 990479 dated February 17, 1999 which ordered the dismissal from the service
of respondent, Richard Syhongpan (Syhongpan), for dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct grossly prejudicial to the best
interest of the service.
The factual backdrop of the case follows:
On
Generally, PAGCOR employees are
prohibited from playing in the casino. On special occasions, however, officers
may be authorized by the Chairman of the Board of Directors to play, provided
that they play only at the small tables, limit their bets to P5,000 per
deal, and cease playing by
The incident prompted the PAGCOR to
instruct its Corporate Investigation Unit (CIU) to conduct an investigation.
After Syhongpan and Carlos Gonzales
(Gonzales), Casino Operations Manager (COM) of Club Filipino-Heritage, were served
with Memoranda of Charges[4]
and given the opportunity to, as they did, submit their written statements,[5]
the CIU personally interviewed the two.
The CIU later reported as follows:
We therefore believe that a partnership was formed last October 8th by BM
SYHONGPAN and COM GONZALES to win money at Pagcor gaming tables in CF-Heritage. To evade the strict injunctions on table limits, time
limit and playing in the big tables applicable to playing officers, the
partnership employed CORAZON CASTILLO as its “gunner[.]” When the partnership needed additional
capital, it was COM GONZALES acting under the direction and control of BM
SYHONGPAN who approached various financiers, eventually incurring a total
indebtedness of P2.7 Million. When they
could not borrow from the financiers anymore, BM SYHONGPAN conceived a scheme
utilizing: 1) the character and reputation
of one QUINTIN A. LLORENTE; 2) his [BM
SYHONGPAN’s] position and influence as a Branch Manager of Pagcor
and, 3) the position and influence of COM
GONZALES as a COM of CF-Heritage to circumvent the existing approval procedure
for personal checks accommodations. This
allowed the partnership to borrow a total of P7 Million from the Heritage
Treasury. Proof of this scheme can be seen in the fact
that, after deducting about P100,000 which was paid to MS. CASTILLO for her
services as a gunner and the owner of the PCs issued, the net profits of roughly P500,000 were
divided 50-50 between BM SYHONGPAN and COM GONZALES. Part
of the elaborate scheme to deceive the Treasury involved the usurpation of
authority by COM GONZALES to have them believe that the check accommodations
were all cleared by the branch SBM/BMO, when in fact they were not. Another
part of the scheme involved the use of MR. LLORENTE as an indorsee/guarantor to
present himself as the purported applicant for the accommodation. This was an act of fraud, since, as correctly
observed by the Treasury, the true applicant/owner of the checks was CORAZON
CASTILLO and not QUINTIN LLORENTE.[6]
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Syhongpan, Gonzales and other
personnel of the PAGCOR were thereafter summoned to appear before the PAGCOR’s Adjudication
Committee to “explain further.”[7]
Before the Adjudication Committee, it
was established that Syhongpan played in the company of Gonzales and a certain Brenda
del
Syhongpan admitted that on the
instigation of Corazon and Betty, he formed a self-styled “corporation” (or
partnership) with an agreement to share profits and losses; that in borrowing from the financiers and from
the Casino Filipino-Heritage Treasury, the partnership relied on the financial
capacity of Betty, a part-owner of BMG Records; that the partnership relied on his acumen and wizardry
at the gaming tables; and that his
participation in the partnership was only ten percent (10%).[9]
Syhongpan likewise admitted “calling
the shots,” telling Corazon where to bet, for he believed that a player has
better odds betting with the banker;[10] that Corazon, who was the “gunner” for proxy
betting, was betting amounts of up to P1.5 million;[11] that he was able to borrow money from
financiers amounting to P2.7 million, broken down as follows:
QUINTIN
LLORENTE 1,400,000
LITO
MADLANGBAYAN 870,000
TEDDY
TAYLAN 200,000
FELISA
SY (ASA) 100,000
BOY
OZAMIS 50,000
LOUIE
(runner of FELISA SY) 80,000
TOTAL 2,700,000;[12]
that when he
and Gonzales could not borrow from the financiers anymore, he inquired from Gonzales
if Quintin Llorente (Llorente), a more well-known player/financier, had been
extended check accommodation in the past and on answering in the affirmative, he
instructed Gonzales to borrow money from the Casino Filipino-Heritage Treasury
(Treasury) upon the representation that Llorente was applying for personal
check (PC) accommodation, although the checks issued were those of Corazon, a
small-time player; and that a total loan
of P7 million pesos was thus obtained from the Treasury.[13]
Gonzales corroborated Syhongpan’s
admissions, except the latter’s claim on the percentage of sharing, Gonzales
having asserted that of the P600,000 profits earned by the partnership, Syhongpan
received P250,000 (41.67%), he (Gonzales) received P250,000
(41.67%), and Corazon received P100,000 (16.67%).[14]
Ultimately, Syhongpan raised before
the Committee the defense of intoxication in that he did not know what was
going on.[15]
The Adjudication Committee, which noted,
among other things, that Llorente was not one of those players to whom PC
accommodation was granted as a matter of course since approval by the Senior
Branch Manager or Branch Manager for Operations (SBM/BMO) was still required,[16]
concluded that Syhongpan violated the conditions strictly regulating gambling
by officers in PAGCOR casinos on special occasions by committing the following
acts:
1. conspiring with COM GONZALES
and casino patrons to borrow and obtain chips from the CF-Heritage Treasury.
2. playing beyond
3. exceeding the betting limit
of P5,000 per deal.
4. playing at the big tables
5. borrowing from players or
financiers
6. engaging in proxy betting
7. excessively fraternizing
with female casino patrons
8. drinking excessively while
at the gaming area
9. abusing his authority in
obtaining playing chips from Treasury personnel.[17]
The
Committee thus recommended as follows:
1. BM RICHARD S. SYHONGPAN of CF-Davao is liable for Dishonesty,
Grave Misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interests
of the service as the “mastermind” of the whole nefarious scheme, from
the time of the formation of the partnership until the division of its profits,
with partners all acting under his direction and control and acting personally
as a principal by inducement and by direct participation in the borrowing of
sums from financiers. At the same time, he is liable for
circumventing casino regulations prohibiting officers from playing beyond
6:00 of the following morning, rules on maximum bets and rules prohibiting
officers from playing at the big tables by employing CORAZON CASTILLO as his
“gunner[.]” This constitutes “proxy
betting[.]” He took undue advantage
of his position and influence to circumvent the rules, for his personal
benefit and profit.
Because he utilized a fraud
to borrow funds from Pagcor to win against Pagcor, the entire scheme was
dishonest. By his acts, he manifested a
desire for personal gain which overrode his duty to protect the Corporation. This created a conflict of interest
for which he is directly and personally responsible and liable. Finally, BM SYHONGPAN prevaricated under [sic] investigation and before the
Adjudication Committee to conceal the truth.
It is also the opinion of
the Adjudication Committee that the acts committed by BM RICHARD SYHONGPAN violated
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Section 3 subparagraphs a, e, h
and j thereof. Also, BM RICHARD
SYHONGPAN violated the Code of Ethical Conduct for Public Officers and
Employees, particularly Section 7 thereof, subparagraphs (c) and (d).
For this, it is respectfully
recommended that BM RICHARD SYHONGPAN be dismissed from the service. This is without prejudice to the filing of
the appropriate charges against him before the Ombudsman.[18]
(Emphasis and underscoring partly in the
original and partly supplied)
The Board of Directors, after considering
the findings and recommendation of the Adjudication Committee, resolved to
dismiss from the service Syhongpan, together with Gonzales.[19]
After they received notices of
termination, Syhongpan and Gonzales appealed to the Civil
Service Commission (CSC).[20]
The CSC affirmed the decision of
PAGCOR by CSC Resolution No. 981738[21]
of
WHEREFORE, the appeal of Richard Syhongpan and Carlos Gonzales is hereby
dismissed for lack of merit. Accordingly,
the decision of the Board of Directors of the Philippine Amusement and Gaming
Corporation finding them guilty of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, Conduct
Grossly Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service for which they are
meted out the penalty of dismissal is hereby affirmed.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office of
the Ombudsman for appropriate criminal action.[22]
Syhongpan and
Gonzales’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied by CSC Resolution No. 990479[23]
of
Only Syhongpan appealed to the Court
of Appeals via Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
The appellate court reversed, as
stated early on, the CSC Resolutions by Decision of
WHEREFORE, CSC Resolution Nos. 981738 dated
The appellate court held that
Syhongpan could not be found guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty as, for such
offenses to merit his dismissal from the service, they must have a direct
relation to, and be connected with, the performance of his official duties. It noted that the incident did not occur in
Syhongpan’s office in
PAGCOR’s motion for reconsideration having
been denied,[27]
it filed the present petition faulting the appellate court
I
. . . WHEN IT FAILED TO
CONSIDER THAT THE RESPONDENT IS GUILTY OF DISHONESTY, GRAVE MISCONDUCT AND
CONDUCT GROSSLY PREJUDICIAL TO THE BEST INTEREST OF THE SERVICE.
II
. . . WHEN IT REVERSED AND
NULLIFIED THE FINDING OF THE CSC AFFIRMING THE FINDINGS OF THE PAGCOR BOARD
DISMISSING THE RESPONDENT FROM THE SERVICE BECAUSE OF DISHONESTY, GROSS
MISCONDUCT AND CONDUCT GROSSLY PREJUDICIAL TO THE BEST INTEREST OF THE SERVICE.
III
. . . WHEN IT FAILED TO
CONSIDER THE RESPONDENT A CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEE WHOSE TERM HAD EXPIRED BY
REASON OF LOSS OF CONFIDENCE.[28]
The
appeal is impressed with merit.
Dishonesty,
to warrant dismissal, need not be committed in the performance of duty of the
employee charged. In Remolona v.
Civil Service Commission,[29]
the therein petitioner, a Postmaster at the Postal Office Service in
Infanta, Quezon, was dismissed by the CSC for dishonesty – acquiring fake
eligibility for his wife who was an elementary school teacher. Posed as main issue was whether a civil
service employee can be dismissed from the government service for an offense
which is not work-related or which is not connected with the performance of his
official duty. This Court, upholding the
legality of the dismissal, held:
It cannot be denied that dishonesty is considered a
grave offense punishable by dismissal for the first offense under Section 23,
Rule XIV of the Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292. And the rule is that dishonesty, in order
to warrant dismissal, need not be committed in the course of the performance of
duty by the person charged. The
rationale for the rule is that if a government officer or employee is dishonest
or is guilty of oppression or grave misconduct, even if said defects of
character are not connected with his office, they affect his right to continue
in office. The Government cannot
tolerate in its service a dishonest official, even if he performs his duties
correctly and well, because by reason of his government position, he is given
more and ample opportunity to commit acts of dishonesty against his fellow men,
even against offices and entities of the government other than the office where
he is employed; and by reason of his
office, he enjoys and possesses a certain influence and power which renders the
victims of his grave misconduct, oppression and dishonesty less disposed and
prepared to resist and to counteract his evil acts and actuations. The private life of an employee cannot be
segregated from his public life. Dishonesty
inevitably reflects on the fitness of the officer or employee to continue in
office and the discipline and morale of the service. (Emphasis supplied)
Syhongpan
did indeed commit serious violations of casino rules and regulations and his
duties as Branch Manager of Casino Filipino-Davao. By his own admission, he formed a
“corporation” composed of persons who agreed to pool together their resources and
play at the gaming tables and share in the profits or losses,[30] thereby
advancing his personal interest over that of the corporation which he was duty
bound to protect, being a high officer of the corporation. Such admission, together with his other
admissions detailed above which are against his interest, clearly merit his
dismissal.
As
the CSC, which adopted the factual findings
and recommendations of the CIU as well as the Adjudication Committee of PAGCOR,
aptly ruled:
As borne by the records of the case, Syhongpan circumvented casino
regulations prohibiting New PAGCOR officers from playing beyond 6:00 o’clock of
the following morning, rules on maximum bets and rules prohibiting officers
from playing at the big tables by employing Corazon Castillo as his ‘gunner[.]’
Gonzales, acting under the direction and
control by [sic] Syhongpan,
approached various financiers whenever their partnership needed additional
capital, incurring a total indebtedness of P2.7 Million pesos. When they could not borrow from the
financiers, Syhongpan utilized the character and reputation of a certain
Quintin A. Llorente as an indorsee/guarantor to present himself as the purported
applicant for the accommodation. This was an act of fraud, since the true
applicant/owner of the checks was Corazon Castillo and not Quintin Llorente. Syhongpan also took advantage of his position
and influence as Branch Manager of a PAGCOR casino. Likewise Gonzales took advantage of his
position and influence as Casino Operations Manager of Casino Filipino-Heritage
to circumvent the existing approval procedure for personal checks
accommodations. This allowed the
partnership to borrow a total of P7 Million pesos from the Heritage Treasury.[31]
It
is axiomatic that where the findings of the administrative body are amply
supported by substantial evidence, as they are in the present case, they are
accorded not only respect but also finality, and are binding on this Court.[32]
At
all events, since Syhongpan is occupying a Branch Manager position of Casino
Filipino-Davao which is primarily confidential, his dismissal from the service
by the Board of Directors of PAGCOR under the circumstances is in order.
WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals
Decision of
SO
ORDERED.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A.
QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J.
VELASCO, JR.
Associate
Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest
that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to
Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision
were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 34-45.
[2]
[3]
[4] Records, pp. 203-204.
[5] Rollo, p. 55.
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28] Rollo,
p. 18.
[29] G.R. No. 137473,
[30] Rollo, p. 124.
[31]
[32] Tiatco v. Civil Service Commission, G. R. No. 100249, December 21, 1992, 216 SCRA 749, 754. Vide also Smith Kline & French Laboratories, Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, 420 Phil. 10, 23-24 (2001); Santos v. Macaraig, G. R. No. 94070, April 10, 1992, 208 SCRA 74, 80.