LIM, DANIELLE Article III. Section 1. I. Procedural Due Process H. Motion for Reconsideration

Imperial v GSIS 658 SCRA 497

FACTS: GSIS charged Monico Imperial Jr., Branch Manager of GSIS Naga Field Office, with Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. He was said to have approved salary loan requests of 8 GSIS Naga Field office employees who lacked the contribution requirements under GSIS Policy and Procedure Guidelines No. 153-99. As a result, he gave them unwarranted benefits through his evident bad faith, manifest partiality, or gross negligence, and caused injury to the pension fund. Atty. Molina, counsel for Imperial Jr., said that the loan was granted based on a board resolution and that the loans were fully paid back. The Hearing Officer first set the venue for the pre-hearing conference in the GSIS Legazpi Field Office but later moved it to the GSIS Naga Field Office. Atty. Molina filed a motion for reconsideration stating that the venue should be at the GSIS Main Office in Pasay City based on GSIS Rules of Procedure. The Hearing Office denied the motion for reconsideration in August 11, 2006. A fax copy of this decision was given on August 14, 2006 but Atty. Molina received the registered mail that contained the order only on August 18, 2006. Hence, Imperial and Atty. Molina failed to appear at the pre-hearing conference on August 17, 2006. The Hearing Officer declared the petitioner to have waived his right to file his answer and to have a formal investigation of the case, and expunged the unverified answer and other pleadings filed by Atty. Molina. GSIS President Winston Garcia found petitioner guilty of grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. He took into consideration the pleadings filed by Atty. Molina despite that fact that it was expunged from the records but found the defenses put up in the pleadings to be unmeritorious. He imposed the penalty of dismissal with the accessory penalties of forfeiture of retirement benefits, cancellation of eligibility, and perpetual disqualification from re-employment in the government. Atty. Molina filed for a motion for reconsideration but it was denied. Monico Imperial said that he was denied due process when the pre-hearing on August 17, 2006 was conducted during his absence without prior notice of the order changing the venue. ISSUES: W/N Imperial was denied due process HELD: No, Monico Imperial was not denied due process. The essence of procedural due process is the opportunity to be heard. In this case, although the petitioner did not get to attend the pre-hearing on August 17, 2006, President Garcia still made his decision on the matter taking into consideration the pleadings filed by petitioner’s attorney despite the fact that they were expunged in the pre-hearing conference. Also, it is important to note that when petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration after President Garcia’s decision, it cured any defect or due process infirmity the Hearing Officer might have committed during the pre-hearing conference.