case no.

155

PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION vs COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 185668
December 13, 2011
Art. III

FACTS:

Mia Manahan was a Treasury Officer of PAGCOR assigned in Casino Filipino-Manila Pavilion.
One of her functions was the handling of fund transfer requests received by the CF-Pavilion. On April
14, 2004, Manahan received a document which was a Request for Fund Transfer for PhP4,200,000
coming from Casino Filipino-Laoag through the fax machine to be released to Arnulfo Fuentabella or
David Fuentabella. On the same day, a person who represented himself as David Fuentabella, as proved
by his SSS ID, came to Manahan to receive the said fund transfer. Private respondent then approved the
transfer and gave PhP2,000,000 in cash and the remaining through chips.

The following day, CF-Pavilion called CF-Laoag to inform the latter that the fund transfer to
David Fuentabella was successful. CF-Laoag, however, denied the same. Manahan was then questioned
by CF-Pavilion, and she was issued a notice of preventive suspension for serious procedural deviation
or gross negligence.

Manahan, in her Written Statement, explained that per actual practice, she was not required to
confirm the fund transfer from CF-Laoag, considering that David Fuentabella was a regular player of
CF-Pavilion and the request document she received was complete with pertinent information and the
required signatures. Manahan also claimed that immediately after the release of the amount of P4.2
million to the claimant, she confirmed this fact by fax to CF-Laoag.

On June 2, 2004, Manahan received a letter informing her of the PAGCOR Board of Directors’
decision to dismiss her from the service. She filed for a motion for reconsideration with the PAGCOR
BOD but was denied the same. She then appealed such ruling to the Civil Service Commission, and the
CSC ruled that she was denied her right to due process. PAGCOR then appealed to the Court of
Appeals, but the CA only affirmed CSC’s decision in toto. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Mia Manahan, upon her dismissal from the service, was denied due process

RATIO + RULING:

YES.
The Court ruled that a person may only be validly dismissed from service when the
requirements of due process are complied with. Section 16 of the CSC Resolution No. 99-1936,
otherwise known as Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides the
requirement of a formal charge in investigations. A formal charge is a written specification of the
charge against an employee. It is composed of a brief statement of the material and relevant facts
constituting the basis of the charge, a directive for the employee to answer the charge in writing and
Prepared by: Cheza Marie Biliran !1
case no. 155

under oath, accompanied by his/her evidence, advice for the employee to indicate in his/her answer
whether he/she elects a formal investigation, and a notice that he/she may secure the assistance of a
counsel of his/her own choice. It may come in different forms, but it has to embody those that were
mentioned above. The formal charge issued to Manahan shows that it does not contain the
abovementioned statements, and it was not issued by the proper disciplining authority. It was the Senior
Branch Manager who directed her preventive suspension, even if she did not have the authority to do so
since she is not part of the company’s disciplining authority.

The petition is DISMISSED.

Prepared by: Cheza Marie Biliran !2