ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 150438.January 22, 2002]
RIVERA vs. CSC et al .
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 22 2002.
G.R. No. 150438 (George I. Rivera vs. Civil Service Commission and Land Bank of the Philippines.)
Petitioner George Rivera, a certified public accountant, was manager of the Account Management Department, Business Development Group, Banking Sector, of respondent Land Bank of the Philippines. On February 1, 1988, on the basis of a complaint-affidavit of a certain William Lao, a client of respondent bank, he was investigated for dishonesty, commission of acts punishable under anti-graft laws, and practice of profession without permission as required by Civil Service Commission Rules and Regulations, all constituting conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The charges stemmed from Lao's claims that, among other things, (1) petitioner had asked for and received commission from him in connection with the approval by respondent bank of the loan application of a corporation of which Lao is an investor and (2) over a period of several months, petitioner worked for him as consultant for which petitioner received salary and allowances as evidenced by vouchers duly signed by petitioner and issued by two corporations (JME and Edge Apparel) owned by Lao.
After investigation, respondent bank found petitioner liable for grave misconduct and commission of acts prejudicial to the best interest of the service and imposed on him the penalty of forced resignation with forfeiture of benefits. On appeal by petitioner, the Merit Systems Board of the Civil Service Commission held petitioner liable only for acts prejudicial to the best interest of the service for having practiced his profession without prior permission of the bank and imposed on him the lighter penalty of one month suspension from the service. Petitioner further appealed to he CSC, which, however, held him liable for the more serious offense of grave misconduct and ordered him dismissed from service. Petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals which reinstated the ruling of the Merit Systems Board suspending him from service for a period of one month. Not satisfied with the ruling, petitioner filed this petition contending that the Court of Appeals erred in finding that he engaged in the practice of his profession without permission from respondent bank.
The petition has no merit.
It is settled that the findings of fact of administrative bodies are binding and even final if they are supported by substantial evidence (Prime Manila Services, Inc. v. NLRC, 297 SCRA 394 (1998)). In this case, the Merit Systems Board found, which finding was affirmed by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) and later by the Court of Appeals, that, in his capacity as a certified public accountant and during his tenure at respondent bank, petitioner worked as consultant/adviser to Lao and his companies and received compensation therefore without permission from the bank in plain violation of then Rule XVIII, �12 of the Revised Civil Service Rules under Presidential Decree No. 807, reiterated in Bk. V, Chap. 7, �47(24) of the Revised Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292) in connection with Rule XVIII, �9 of the Civil Service Omnibus Rules implementing such.
In this petition, petitioner has not adduced any sufficient basis to
warrant modification or reversal of the foregoing. He merely reiterates the
contention he raised before the Merit Systems Board, the Civil Service
Commission, and the Court of Appeals, i.e.,
the vouchers in question, which he had allegedly signed in blank, represented
Lao's reimbursement for expenses he (Rivera) had allegedly advanced for Lao and
that the latter subsequently falsified the vouchers to make them appear as
payments for allowances to Rivera. As correctly observed by the CSC, however,
petitioner's claimed is incredible for with his training, intelligence, and
experience, it is highly unusual for him to sign blank vouchers for the
reimbursement of his expenses as he could just have placed notations thereon to
such effect or he could have issued his own reimbursement receipts. Indeed,
petitioner has provided no explanation as to what capacity he incurred the
expenses (amounting to more than P80,000.00)for which he was allegedly
reimbursed by Lao. As the Merit Systems Board aptly ruled, "The vouchers
containing the details of the represented transaction, as testified upon by one
of its signatory, Valentina Wee, done in the ordinary course of business, in
the absence of any iota of evidence of fabrication or intercalation, must be
given greater weight as against the appellant's [claim]."
WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVED to DENYthe petition for lack of showing that the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error.(Kapunan, J., took no part)
Very truly yours,
LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Asst. Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
