PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS (Art. III, Sec 1)Rivera vs.

CSC,
Land Bank of the Philippines (January 4, 1995)
Facts:
Petitioner was the manager of Corporate Banking Unit of LBP and
was charged with dishonesty, receiving for personal use of fee,
gift or other valuable thing in the course of official duties,
committing acts punishable under the Anti-Graft Laws, and
pursuit of private business vocation or profession without
permission required by CSC. Rivera allegedly toldPerez that he
would facilitate the processing, approval and release of his loan if
he would be given 10% commission. Riverawas further charged
having served and acted, without prior authority required by CSC,
as the personal consultant of Lao andconsultant in various
companies where Lao had investments. LBP held Rivers guilty of
grave misconduct and actsprejudicial to the best interest of the
service in accepting employment from a client of the bank. The
penalty of forcedresignation, without separation benefits and
gratuities, was thereupon imposed on Rivera.
Issue:
Whether the CSC committed grave abuse of discretion in
composing the capital penalty of dismissal on the basis
of unsubstantiated finding and conclusions
Ruling:
Given the circumstances in the case at bench, it should have
behooved Commissioner Gaminde to inhibit herself totally from
any participation in resolving Riveras appeal to CSC to give
full meaning and consequence to a fundamentalaspect of due
process.CSC resolution is SET ASIDE and the case is remanded to
CSC for the resolution, sans the participation of CSCCommissioner
Gaminde, as she was the Board Chairman of MSPB whose ruling is
thus appealed