Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 129 views

    PNB Vs Garcia

    Uploaded by

    Alexis Von Te
    1) Philippine National Bank (PNB) charged its employee Ricardo Garcia with gross neglect of duty for lost funds. PNB found Garcia guilty and imposed a penalty. Garcia appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) which exonerated him. PNB then appealed the CSC's decision. 2) The issue is whether PNB can appeal the CSC's decision exonerating Garcia. 3) The Court ruled that PNB can appeal. Neither the law nor the Constitution bar appeals of decisions exonerating employees. Allowing only employees to appeal would undermine efforts against corruption and erode judicial review.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    PNB Vs Garcia

    Uploaded by

    Alexis Von Te
    129 views1 page
    1) Philippine National Bank (PNB) charged its employee Ricardo Garcia with gross neglect of duty for lost funds. PNB found Garcia guilty and imposed a penalty. Garcia appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) which exonerated him. PNB then appealed the CSC's decision. 2) The issue is whether PNB can appeal the CSC's decision exonerating Garcia. 3) The Court ruled that PNB can appeal. Neither the law nor the Constitution bar appeals of decisions exonerating employees. Allowing only employees to appeal would undermine efforts against corruption and erode judicial review.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    5. PNB vs Garcia.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Philippine National Bank (PNB) charged its employee Ricardo Garcia with gross neglect of duty for lost funds. PNB found Garcia guilty and imposed a penalty. Garcia appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) which exonerated him. PNB then appealed the CSC's decision. 2) The issue is whether PNB can appeal the CSC's decision exonerating Garcia. 3) The Court ruled that PNB can appeal. Neither the law nor the Constitution bar appeals of decisions exonerating employees. Allowing only employees to appeal would undermine efforts against corruption and erode judicial review.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    129 views1 page

    PNB Vs Garcia

    Uploaded by

    Alexis Von Te
    1) Philippine National Bank (PNB) charged its employee Ricardo Garcia with gross neglect of duty for lost funds. PNB found Garcia guilty and imposed a penalty. Garcia appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) which exonerated him. PNB then appealed the CSC's decision. 2) The issue is whether PNB can appeal the CSC's decision exonerating Garcia. 3) The Court ruled that PNB can appeal. Neither the law nor the Constitution bar appeals of decisions exonerating employees. Allowing only employees to appeal would undermine efforts against corruption and erode judicial review.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    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 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. 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.

    You might also like