Republic of the
Supreme Court
EN BANC
|
MONICO K. IMPERIAL, JR., Petitioner, - versus - GOVERNMENT SERVICE
INSURANCE SYSTEM, Respondent. |
|
G.R. No. 191224 Present: CARPIO, VELASCO, JR., LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION, PERALTA, BERSAMIN, ABAD, VILLARAMA, JR., PEREZ, SERENO, REYES, and PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ. Promulgated: October
4, 2011 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
BRION, J.:
We resolve the petition for review on certiorari,[1] filed by petitioner Monico K. Imperial,
Jr., from the
The Factual Antecedents
On
October 19, 2005, the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) administratively charged the petitioner, then Branch Manager
of the GSIS Naga Field Office, with Dishonesty,
Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service[4] for approving the requests for salary
loans of eight GSIS Naga Field Office employees who lacked the contribution
requirements under GSIS Policy and Procedural Guidelines (PPG) No. 153-99,[5] giving
them unwarranted benefits through his evident bad faith, manifest partiality or
gross negligence, and causing injury to the pension fund.[6]
He was required to answer and was preventively suspended for ninety (90) days.
On
In
a
Atty. Molina filed a motion for
reconsideration, pointing out that the GSIS Rules of Procedure set the venue of
pre-hearing conferences at the GSIS Main Office in
At
the scheduled
GSIS
President and General Manager Winston F. Garcia found the petitioner guilty of
grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.[11] He noted
that the evidence presented by the prosecution clearly showed that the
petitioners approval of the requests for salary loans of eight GSIS Naga Field
Office employees was improper because they lacked the contribution requirements
under PPG No. 153-99. He also noted that the pleadings filed by Atty. Molina,
as the petitioners purported counsel, were expunged from the records, but he,
nonetheless, discussed the defenses raised in these pleadings and found them unmeritorious.
Noting that this was the petitioners
second administrative offense (he had previously been suspended for one [1]
year for gross neglect of duty for failing to implement the recommendations of
the Internal Audit Services Group pertaining to the handling of
returned-to-sender checks, resulting in a GSIS Naga Field Office Cashier
defrauding the GSIS of checks), Garcia imposed the penalty of dismissal with
the accessory penalties of forfeiture of retirement benefits, cancellation of
eligibility and perpetual disqualification from re-employment in the
government. On the same date, the GSIS Board of Trustees approved the decision.[12]
In a June 6, 2007 resolution,[13] Garcia
denied the petitioners motion for reconsideration, noting that Atty. Molina
had no authority to appear for and in behalf of the petitioner, having failed
to submit any formal written authority; that the petitioners answer was
unverified; and that, in any event, the petitioner had no evidence sufficient
to overturn the evidence presented by the prosecution.
The petitioner appealed to the Civil
Service Commission (CSC), reiterating
his arguments of denial of due process and the lack of evidence against him.
The
CSC rejected the petitioners claim of due process violation, finding that the
petitioners filing of a motion for reconsideration cured whatever procedural
due process defect there might have been.[14]
It noted that the records of the case
showed that the petitioner approved the loan applications despite the patent
ineligibility of the loan applicants. The CSC thus affirmed the petitioners
dismissal for grave misconduct, but added as an accessory penalty the
prohibition from taking any civil service examination.
The petitioner elevated his case to
the CA through a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
In
its
The Petition
In
the petition before us, the petitioner argues that he was denied due process
when the August 17, 2006 pre-hearing conference was conducted in his absence
without prior notice of the August 11, 2006 order denying the motion for
reconsideration of the order of change of venue, since Atty. Molina received by
registered mail a copy of the August 11, 2006 order only on August 18, 2006, or
a day after the August 17, 2006 pre-hearing conference. The petitioner pleads
good faith in approving the loans based on an existing GSIS Board Resolution
which authorizes branch managers to approve loans for meritorious and special
reasons; the loans were cleared by the Commission on Audit and settled by the
borrowers. He contends that the penalty of dismissal is too severe in the
absence of any wrongful intent and given his 40 years of government service.
The Case for Respondent GSIS
The
GSIS submits that the petitioner was not denied due process because Atty.
Molina received on
The Issues
The issues
are: (1) whether the petitioner was denied due process, and (2) whether there
was substantial evidence to support petitioners dismissal from the service.
The Courts Ruling
We PARTIALLY GRANT the petition and
modify the findings of the CA pertaining to the petitioners administrative
liability.
The Procedural Due Process Issue
Procedural due process is the constitutional
standard demanding that notice and an opportunity to be heard be given before
judgment is rendered. As long as a party is given the opportunity to defend his
interests in due course, he would have no reason to complain; the essence of
due process is in the opportunity to be heard.[17]
A formal or trial-type hearing is not always necessary.
In
this case, while the petitioner did not participate in the August 17, 2006
pre-hearing conference (despite receipt on August 14, 2006 of a fax copy of the
August 11, 2006 order), Garcias decision of February 21, 2007 duly considered
and discussed the defenses raised in Atty. Molinas pleadings, although the
answer was ordered expunged from the records because it was unverified and because
Atty. Molina failed to submit a letter of authority to represent the
petitioner.
What negates any due process
infirmity is the petitioners subsequent motion for reconsideration which cured
whatever defect the Hearing Officer might have committed in the course of
hearing the petitioners case.[18] Again,
Garcia duly considered the arguments presented in the petitioners motion for
reconsideration when he rendered the
Findings
of facts of administrative bodies accorded finality when supported by
substantial evidence
Misconduct has a legal and uniform
definition. Misconduct has been defined as an intentional wrongdoing or a deliberate
violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior, especially by a government
official.[20] A
misconduct is grave where the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate
the law or flagrant disregard of established rule are present.[21] Otherwise,
a misconduct is only simple.
No doubt exists in our mind that the
petitioner committed misconduct in this case. The records clearly show that the petitioner
committed the acts complained of, i.e.,
he approved the requests for salary loans of eight GSIS Naga Field Office
employees who lacked the necessary contribution requirements under PPG No.
153-99. After a careful review of the
records, however, we disagree with the findings of the GSIS, the CSC and the CA
that the petitioners acts constituted grave misconduct. While we accord great respect
to the factual findings of administrative agencies that misconduct was
committed, we cannot characterize the offense committed as grave. No
substantial evidence was adduced to support the elements of corruption, clear
intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule that
must be present to characterize the misconduct as grave.
We are aware that to the CSC, the mere act of
approving the loan applications on several occasions proves the element of
flagrant disregard of established rules to constitute grave misconduct. Thus, it said:
The act of the appellant in approving salary loan applications of his subordinates over and above the prescribed rates under the GSIS policy, not only once but several times, indicates his flagrant and wanton transgression of the said policy. He, in fact, abused his authority in doing so.[22]
Flagrant disregard of rules is a
ground that jurisprudence has already touched upon. It has been demonstrated,
among others, in the instances when there had been open defiance of a customary
rule;[23] in
the repeated voluntary disregard of established rules in the procurement of
supplies;[24] in the
practice of illegally collecting fees more than what is prescribed for delayed
registration of marriages;[25]
when several violations or disregard of regulations governing the collection of
government funds were committed;[26]
and when the employee arrogated unto herself responsibilities that were clearly
beyond her given duties.[27] The common denominator in these cases was
the employees propensity to ignore the rules as clearly manifested by his or
her actions.
Under the circumstances of the
present case, we do not see the type of open defiance and disregard of GSIS
rules that the CSC observed. In fact,
the CSCs findings on the petitioners actions prior to the approval of the
loans negate the presence of any intent on the petitioners part to deliberately
defy the policy of the GSIS. First, GSIS branch managers have been granted
in the past the authority to approve loan applications beyond the prescribed requirements
of GSIS; second, there was a customary lenient practice in the approval
of loans exercised by some branch managers notwithstanding the existing GSIS
policy; and third, the petitioner first sought the approval of his
immediate supervisor before acting on the loan applications. These
circumstances run counter to the characteristic flagrant disregard of the rules
that grave misconduct requires.
Thus, the petitioners liability under the
given facts only involves simple misconduct. As Branch Manager of the GSIS Naga
Field Office, he is presumed to know all existing policies, guidelines and
procedures in carrying out the agencys mandate in the area. By approving the loan applications of eight GSIS
Naga Field Office employees who did not fully meet the required qualifications,
he committed a serious lapse of judgment sufficient to hold him liable for
simple misconduct.
The Revised Uniform Rules of the
Civil Service (Civil Service Rules) classifies simple misconduct as a less
grave offense. Under Section 52(B) (2),
Rule IV of the Civil Service Rules, the commission of simple misconduct is
penalized by suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for
the first offense, and dismissal from the service for the second offense. While
records show that this is not the petitioners first offense as he was
previously suspended for one (1) year for neglect of duty, we believe that his
dismissal would be disproportionate to the nature and effect of the
transgression he committed as the GSIS did not suffer any prejudice through the
loans he extended; these loans were for GSIS employees and were duly paid for.
Thus, for his second simple misconduct, we impose on the petitioner the penalty
of suspension from the lapse of his preventive suspension by GSIS up to the
finality of this Decision.[28]
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, we PARTIALLY GRANT the petition for review on certiorari and MODIFY the assailed decision and resolution of the Court of
Appeals. Petitioner Monico K. Imperial, Jr. is found GUILTY of SIMPLE MISCONDUCT and is hereby SUSPENDED from the time the preventive
suspension that GSIS imposed lapsed, up to the finality of this Decision.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO
D. BRION
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
|
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
|
TERESITA J.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice
|
DIOSDADO
M. PERALTA Associate Justice
|
|
LUCAS P.
BERSAMIN Associate Justice
|
MARIANO C.
Associate Justice
|
|
ROBERTO A.
ABAD Associate Justice |
MARTIN S.
VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
|
JOSE Associate Justice
|
JOSE
CATRAL Associate Justice
|
(On Leave)
MARIA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ESTELA
M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I
certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1] Filed pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court; rollo, pp. 3-35.
[2] Penned by Associate Justice Mario L. Guaria III, and concurred in by Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Jane Aurora C. Lantion; id. at 39-50.
[3]
[4] Pursuant to the Amended Rules of Procedure in the Administrative Investigation of GSIS Employees and Officials in relation to the Uniform Rules of Procedure on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
[5] Dated
[6] Rollo, pp. 53-55.
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] Decision dated
[12]
[13]
[14] Resolution dated
[15] Supra note 2.
[16] Supra note 3.
[17] Catmon Sales International Corporation v. Yngson, Jr., G.R. No. 179761, January 15, 2010, 610 SCRA 236, 244; and Cuenca v. Atas, G.R. No. 146214, October 5, 2007, 535 SCRA 48, 72.
[18] Autencio v. City Administrator Maara, 489 Phil. 752, 760-761 (2005); Cordenillo v. Hon. Exec. Secretary, 342 Phil. 618, 643 (1997); and Rubenecia v. CSC, 314 Phil. 612, 631 (1995).
[19] Supra note 13.
[20] Vertudes
v. Buenaflor, G.R. No. 153166,
[21]
[22] Rollo, p. 125.
[23] Narvasa
v. Sanchez, Jr., G.R. No. 169449,
[24] Roque
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 179245,
[25] Bulalat
v. Adil, A.M. No. SCC-05-10-P,
[26]
[27] Re: Letter
of Judge Lorenza Bordios Paculdo, MTC, Branch 1, San Pedro, Laguna, A.M.
No. P-07-2346,
[28] Fact-Finding
and Intelligence Bureau, Office of the Ombudsman v. Campaa, G.R. No.
173865,