Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 343 views

    Vivo Vs PAGCOR Digest

    Uploaded by

    JebellePuracan
    The document summarizes a case between Vivo and PAGCOR regarding Vivo's dismissal from employment at PAGCOR. Vivo claimed his right to due process was violated in two ways: 1) PAGCOR failed to provide him copies of board resolutions regarding his dismissal and denial of reconsideration, and 2) PAGCOR refused to reschedule a meeting to allow Vivo's counsel to attend. However, the court ruled that 1) not receiving copies did not invalidate the board resolutions or mean his dismissal was unauthorized, and 2) Vivo was not denied his right to counsel as the meeting was still held with him present. The Civil Service Commission originally ruled in Vivo's favor, but the Court of Appeals

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Vivo Vs PAGCOR Digest

    Uploaded by

    JebellePuracan
    343 views2 pages
    The document summarizes a case between Vivo and PAGCOR regarding Vivo's dismissal from employment at PAGCOR. Vivo claimed his right to due process was violated in two ways: 1) PAGCOR failed to provide him copies of board resolutions regarding his dismissal and denial of reconsideration, and 2) PAGCOR refused to reschedule a meeting to allow Vivo's counsel to attend. However, the court ruled that 1) not receiving copies did not invalidate the board resolutions or mean his dismissal was unauthorized, and 2) Vivo was not denied his right to counsel as the meeting was still held with him present. The Civil Service Commission originally ruled in Vivo's favor, but the Court of Appeals

    Original Description:

    Vivo vs PAGCOR Digest

    Original Title

    Vivo vs PAGCOR Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes a case between Vivo and PAGCOR regarding Vivo's dismissal from employment at PAGCOR. Vivo claimed his right to due process was violated in two ways: 1) PAGCOR failed to provide him copies of board resolutions regarding his dismissal and denial of reconsideration, and 2) PAGCOR refused to reschedule a meeting to allow Vivo's counsel to attend. However, the court ruled that 1) not receiving copies did not invalidate the board resolutions or mean his dismissal was unauthorized, and 2) Vivo was not denied his right to counsel as the meeting was still held with him present. The Civil Service Commission originally ruled in Vivo's favor, but the Court of Appeals

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    343 views2 pages

    Vivo Vs PAGCOR Digest

    Uploaded by

    JebellePuracan
    The document summarizes a case between Vivo and PAGCOR regarding Vivo's dismissal from employment at PAGCOR. Vivo claimed his right to due process was violated in two ways: 1) PAGCOR failed to provide him copies of board resolutions regarding his dismissal and denial of reconsideration, and 2) PAGCOR refused to reschedule a meeting to allow Vivo's counsel to attend. However, the court ruled that 1) not receiving copies did not invalidate the board resolutions or mean his dismissal was unauthorized, and 2) Vivo was not denied his right to counsel as the meeting was still held with him present. The Civil Service Commission originally ruled in Vivo's favor, but the Court of Appeals

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    VIVO vs PAGCOR

    FACTS:

    • Petitioner Vivo was employed as Managing Head of PAGCOR’s Gaming Department.

    • Vivo received a letter from PAGCOR’s HR Head advising that he was being administratively
    charged with gross misconduct, rumor-mongering, conduct prejudicial to the interest of the
    company, and loss of trust and confidence; that he should submit a written explanation of the
    charges; and that he was at the same time being placed under preventive suspension.

    • Thereafter, he received the summons for him to attend an administrative inquiry, instructing
    him to appear before PAGCOR’s Corporate Investigation Unit (CIU).

    • At the petitioner’s request, however, the inquiry was conducted at his residence on said date.

    • He was also furnished the memorandum of charges that recited the accusations against him and
    indicated the acts and omissions constituting his alleged offenses.

    • Petitioner Vivo received a letter from HRD Head informing him of the resolution of the PAGCOR
    Board of Directors in its May 14, 2002 meeting to the effect that he was being dismissed from
    the service.

    • CSC : PAGCOR had violated the petitioner’s right to due process, and accordingly set aside his
    dismissal from the service.

    • CA : set aside and reversed CSC’s decision upon its finding that the petitioner had been accorded
    procedural due process.

    ISSUES:

    1. Whether PAGCOR’s failure to furnish the petitioner a copy of the Board Resolutions authorizing
    his dismissal and denying his motion for reconsideration was a fatal and irreparable defect in the
    administrative proceedings that ultimately resulted in the illegality of his dismissal from the
    service.

    2. Whether PAGCOR’s refusal to re-schedule the Adjudication Committee meeting in order to


    enable his counsel to attend the meeting with him, because the refusal constituted a violation of
    his right to be represented by counsel.

    RULING:

    1. On PAGCOR’s failure to furnish petitioner copies of the Board Resolutions.

    • This did not negate the existence of the resolutions, and did not invalidate the contents of the
    board resolutions. It is beyond question that he was duly informed of the subject-matter of the
    board resolutions.

    • Consequently, the CSC’s conclusion that his dismissal had been unauthorized was unfounded. In
    any case, even assuming for the sake of argument that there was no board resolution approving
    his dismissal, the lapse did not render his dismissal illegal but unauthorized. However, as the CA
    succinctly put it, an unauthorized act could be the subject of ratification.

    You might also like