5. Pnb Vs Garcia.docx

5. Philippine National Bank (PNB) vs Ricardo V.Garcia Facts: Ricardo Garcia a check processor and cash representative at PNB, was charged by latter with Gross Neglect of Duty in connection with the funds it had lost and PNB-Administrative Adjudication Office rendered its decision approved by PNB Executive Vice President found respondent guilty with a penalty of Forced Resignation with Benefits without prejudiced to his monetary liability arising from the case. Respondent moved for reconsideration but was denied aggrieved by the decision he appealed to public respondent (Civil Service Commission). Meanwhile, Pursuant to EO No. 80 PNB was privatized. Subsequently, public respondent issued a resolution granting private respondent's appeal after finding that the evidence on record failed to establish neglect of duty on the part of private respondent which exonerated him of the charges, charged against him. Petitioner moved for reconsideration but was denied. Hence appealed in CA and ruled that a decision exonerating a respondent in an administrative case is final and unappealable citing Citing Mendez v. Civil Service Commission (old doctrine), the CA construed the phrase "party adversely affected" in the above-quoted provision to refer solely to the public officer or employee who was administratively disciplined. Hence, an appeal may be availed of only in a case where the respondent is found guilty. Issue: Whether or not petitioner can appeal the decision made by the Civil Service Commission. Held: Yes. The right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process, but a mere statutory privilege that may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by law. Neither can the old doctrine barring appeal be justified by the provision limiting the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission. According to that provision, the CSC was limited to the review of decisions involving: (1) suspension for more than thirty (30) days; (2) fine in an amount exceeding thirty (30) days’ salary; (3) demotion in rank or salary; and (4) transfer, removal or dismissal from office. There is nothing in the law that bars an appeal of a decision exonerating a government official or an employee from an administrative charge. If a statute is clear, plain and free form ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation. Indeed, the campaign against corruption, malfeasance and misfeasance in government will be undermined if the government or the private offended party is prevented from appealing erroneous administrative decisions. After all, administrative cases do not partake of the nature of criminal actions, in which acquittals are final and unappealable based on the constitutional proscription of double jeopardy. Furthermore, our new Constitution expressly expanded the range and scope of judicial review. Thus, to prevent appeals of administrative decisions except those initiated by employees will effectively and pervertedly erode this constitutional grant. Citing Mendez v. Civil Service Commission, the CA construed the phrase "party adversely affected" in the abovequoted provision to refer solely to the public officer or employee who was administratively disciplined. Hence, an appeal may be availed of only in a case where the respondent is found guilty. However, this interpretation has been overturned in Civil Service Commission v. Dacoycoy. Speaking through Justice Bernardo P. Pardo, the Court said that “we now expressly abandon and overrule extant jurisprudence that the phrase ‘party adversely affected by the decision’ refers to the government employee against whom the administrative case is filed for the purpose of disciplinary action which may take the form of suspension, demotion in rank or salary, transfer, removal or dismissal from office x x x.