[G.R. No. 150438. January 22, 2002]
RIVERA vs. CSC et al.
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 DENY the petition for lack of
showing that the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error. (Kapunan, J., took no part)
Very
truly yours,
Clerk of
Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Asst. Clerk of Court