Gannapao v.

CSC
G.R. No. 180141 – May 31, 2011
J. Villarama, Jr.

Digest Author: Ian Serrano

Topic: Administrative Procedure – Cardinal Primary Requirements of Due Process

Case Summary: Petitioner Rimando Gannapao was a police officer who worked as a bodyguard for a
private individual, Atty. Roy Gironella. After a dispute between Gironella and his employees, Gannapao
and his group armed with deadly weapons such as guns and knives intimidated and harassed the
employees and took over the buses. Afterwards, a complaint against Gannapao was filed before the PNP.
The PNP found Gannapao guilty of serious irregularities in the performance of duties and sentenced him
to suffer the penalty of three (3) months suspension. On Gannapao’s appeal to the CSC, the penalty was
upgraded to dismissal.

The Supreme Court ruled that contrary to Gannapao’s assertion, he was afforded due process in the
administrative case in the PNP. He was adequately apprised of the charges filed against him and he
submitted his answer to the complaint while the case was still under a pre-charge investigation. When the
Office of the Legal Service conducted a summary hearing on the complaint, he was again duly notified of
the proceedings and was given an opportunity to explain his side. The penalty of dismissal was likewise
proper because the allegations were proved by evidence.

Petitioners: Rimando A. Gannapao

Respondents: Civil Service Commission (CSC), The Chief of Philippine National Police, The Secretary
of Department of the Interior and Local Government, Ariel G. Ronquillo, J. Waldemar V. Valmores, Jose
F. Erestain, Jr., and Karina Constantino-David, all named individuals in their capacity as officers of the
CSC, Ricardo Barien, Inocencio M. Navallo, Ligaya M. Gando, Lea Molleda, Fe R. Vetonio, Primo V.
Babiano, Patiga J., Jose Taeza, G. Delos Santos, Losbañes, W., Ave Pediglorio and Cresencia Roque

Doctrine: The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or, as applied to administrative
proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action
or ruling complained of. In the application of the principle of due process, what is sought to be
safeguarded is not lack of previous notice but the denial of the opportunity to be heard. As long as a party
was given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he was not denied due process.

FACTS:
1. Respondents Ricardo Barien, Inocencio M. Navallo, Ligaya M. Gando, Lea Molleda, Fe R.
Vetonio, Primo V. Babiano, Patiga J., Jose Taeza, G. Delos Santos, Losbañes, W., Ave Pediglorio
and Cresencia Roque (Barien, et al.) are stockholders and board members of United Workers
Transport Corp. (UWTC).
a. They are former drivers, conductors, mechanics and clerks of the defunct Metro Manila
Transit Corporation (MMTC).
b. In April 1995, UWTC started operating MMTC's buses which it acquired under a
conditional sale with right of repossession.
2. Petitioner SPO1 Rimando A. Gannapao was allegedly employed by Atty. Roy G. Gironella, the
general manager appointed by the Board of Directors of UWTC, as his personal bodyguard with
compensation coming from UWTC.
3. In October 1995, Barien, et al. representing the majority stockholders of UWTC sued Atty.
Gironella and five other members of the UWTC Board of Directors for gross mismanagement.
4. Barien, et al. alleged that upon orders of Atty. Gironella, the buses regularly driven by them and
other stockholders/drivers/workers were confiscated by a "task force" composed of former drivers,
conductors and mechanics led by Gannapao.
a. Armed with deadly weapons such as guns and knives, Gannapao and his group intimidated
and harassed the regular bus drivers and conductors, and took over the buses.
b. Gannapao is not authorized to use his firearm or his authority as police officer to act as
bodyguard of Atty. Gironella and to intimidate and coerce the drivers/stockholders and the
bus passengers.
5. On December 22, 1995, Barien, et al. filed a complaint and prayed for the preventive suspension
of Gannapao, the confiscation of his firearm, and his termination after due hearing before the PNP
Inspectorate Division at Camp Crame.
6. The complaint passed a pre-charge investigation with The Inspector General, Internal Affairs
Office (TIG-IAO) of the PNP, and Gannapao filed his Answer 5 on January 12, 1996.
a. Gannapao specifically denied the allegations of the complaint and averred that he was
never employed by Atty. Gironella as bodyguard.
b. Instead, it was his twin brother, Reynaldo Gannapao, who worked as messenger at UWTC.
c. Chief Service Inspectorate Police Superintendent Atty. Joselito Azarcon Casugbo
recommended the dismissal of the complaint, citing the affidavit of desistance allegedly
executed by Avelino Pediglorio.
7. National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) Memorandum Circular No. 96-010 dated July 31,
1996, was issued, and a summary hearing on the complaint was conducted by the Office of the
Legal Service, PNP National Headquarters in accordance with the newly promulgated rules.
8. On January 30, 1997, Atty. Eduardo Sierra of the Office of the Director General, PNP, issued a
subpoena to Gannapao requiring him to appear at the hearing before the Office of the Legal Service
in Camp Crame.
a. Gannapao moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of res judicata, citing the earlier
dismissal of the complaint against him by Chief Service Inspectorate Casugbo.
b. However, PNP Chief Recaredo A. Sarmiento II denied the motion to dismiss.
9. On November 26, 1997, PNP Chief Sarmiento rendered his Decision finding Gannapao guilty of
the charge of serious irregularities in the performance of duties and sentenced him to suffer the
penalty of three (3) months suspension from the police service without pay.
a. Gannapao’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
b. His appeal to the NAPOLCOM National Appellate Board was dismissed.
c. On appeal to the Department of Interior and Local Government, Secretary Alfredo Lim
denied his appeal and affirmed his suspension for three months.
10. Gannapao then appealed to the CSC claiming that he had been denied due process in the
proceedings before the Office of the Legal Service.
a. The CSC issued Resolution No. 020487 dismissing his appeal but modifying his penalty
of three months suspension to dismissal.
b. The CSC noted that the only evidence submitted by him during the investigation of the
case is the picture of his alleged twin brother, Reynaldo and said that the best evidence
would have been the birth certificate or any document or the presentation of the person
himself, which would verify the existence and employment in UWTC of such person.
c. As to the assertion of Gannapao that the complaint has no more basis since some of the
complainants (Cresencia Roque, Primo V. Babiano and Avelino Pediglorio) have filed
affidavits of desistance with the PNP, the CSC pointed out that these affidavits were
submitted after the PNP Chief had rendered his decision and attached to petitioner's motion
for reconsideration of said decision.
d. More importantly, the withdrawal of the complaint does not result in its outright dismissal
nor discharge the person complained of from any administrative liability.
 e. The CSC ruled that his act of serving as bodyguard of Atty. Gironella and harassing the
bus drivers of UWTC is so grave as to warrant the penalty of dismissal.
11. The Court of Appeals dismissed Gannapao’s appeal and ruled that he cannot claim denial of due
process since he was given ample opportunity to present his side.
a. His motion for reconsideration was denied.
b. Hence, this petition.

ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT:

 Gannapao’s arguments related to the doctrine:
o He was denied due process in the proceedings before the Office of the Legal Service of the
PNP since no notice and summons were issued for him to answer the charges and no
hearing was conducted.
o His dismissal was not proper and legal as there was no introduction and presentation of
evidence against him and he was not given the opportunity to defend his side.

ISSUES + HELD:
1. W/N Gannapao was denied due process – NO.
o The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or, as applied to
administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek
a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.
 What is sought to be safeguarded is not lack of previous notice but the denial of
the opportunity to be heard.
 As long as a party was given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course,
he was not denied due process.
o Gannapao was afforded due process during the proceedings before the Office of the
Legal Service of the PNP.
 He was adequately apprised of the charges filed against him and he submitted his
answer to the complaint while the case was still under a pre-charge investigation.
 When the Office of the Legal Service conducted a summary hearing on the
complaint, he was again duly notified of the proceedings and was given an
opportunity to explain his side.
o Gannapao’s claim that he did not file an answer since no subpoena was issued to him thus
deserves scant consideration.
 He had ample opportunity to present his side during the hearing and he was even
advised by the hearing officer that he may file a supplemental answer or a
counter affidavit until February 17, 1997 or he may adopt his answer filed with
the TIG-IAO.
o Gannapao’s assertion that the complainants/witnesses against him have not been cross-
examined by him, is likewise bereft of merit.
 While the right to cross-examine is a vital element of procedural due process, the
right does not necessarily require an actual cross examination but merely an
opportunity to exercise this right if desired by the party entitled to it.
 While Memorandum Circular No. 96-010 provides that the sworn statements of
witnesses shall take the place of oral testimony but shall be subject to cross-
examination, petitioner missed this opportunity precisely because he did not
appear at the deadline for the filing of his supplemental answer or counter-
affidavit, and accordingly the hearing officer considered the case submitted for
decision.
o Moreover, after the PNP Director General rendered his decision, Gannapao filed a motion
for reconsideration which was denied.
  He was also able to appeal from the decision of the PNP Director General to the
DILG Secretary, and eventually to the CSC.
 The Court has held that the fact that a party filed motions for reconsideration and
appeals with the tribunals below, in which she presented her arguments and
through which she could have proffered her evidence, if any, negates her claim
that she was denied opportunity to be heard

2. W/N the penalty of dismissal was proper – YES.

o Under Memorandum Circular No. 93-024 (Guidelines in the Application of Penalties in
Police Administrative Cases), it is a grave offense for any member of the PNP to act as
bodyguard or security guard for the person or property of any public official, or private
person unless approved by the proper authorities concerned.
 The penalty for grave offenses in the maximum period is dismissal.
o The CSC found that petitioner indeed worked for Atty. Gironella as the latter's
bodyguard.
 The Certification by Atty. Gironella stating that Gannapao was not an employee
of UWTC is unreliable, and at best, self-serving.
o His defense that it was his twin brother, Reynaldo, who was present in the incident when
the buses were confiscated by armed men is also unconvincing.
 There was no certification issued by UWTC that Reynaldo Gannapao was indeed
employed therein for the period relevant to this case, nor any document
evidencing receipt of his wages or salary from UWTC.
 Even assuming that Gannapao in fact had a twin brother by the name of
Reynaldo, Barien, et al. in their sworn statements categorically pointed to him,
not his twin brother, as the one leading the armed group sent by Atty. Gironella
to confiscate their buses and acted as bodyguard of Atty. Gironella.
 The police blotter entries 32 dated October 13, 1995 and November 22, 1995
tend to support the claim of Barien, et al. that Atty. Gironella threatened them
when they complained of his mismanagement of company funds and that in this
conflict, Gannapao had used his firearm and authority as police officer to lead in
the taking of the MMTC buses from UWTC drivers and conductors.
o The affidavits of desistance that some complainants executed are immaterial.
 Under Section 10, Rule II of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the
Civil Service, the withdrawal of the complaint does not result in its outright
dismissal nor discharge the person complained of from any administrative
liability.
 Where there is obvious truth or merit to the allegation in the complaint or where
there is documentary evidence that would tend to prove the guilt of the person
complained of, the same should be given due course.
o Public respondent CSC did not err in not considering length of service as a mitigating
circumstance and in imposing the maximum penalty of dismissal on the Gannapao.
 Length of service is an alternative circumstance which can mitigate or possibly
even aggravate the penalty, depending on the circumstances of the case, as per
Section 53, Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in
the Civil Service.
 Where the government employee concerned took advantage of long years of
service and position in public office, length of service may not be considered in
lowering the penalty.

RULING: Petition denied.