ADMINISTRATIVE DUE PROCESS reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.

As long as a party was given the

Gannapao vs. Civil Service Commission opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he was not denied due process.
G.R. No. 180141. May 31, 2011.*
Ponente: VILLARAMA, JR., J. Digest Author: FABI Here, it is clear that petitioner was afforded due process since he was given his fair
opportunity to present his case. As a matter of fact, petitioner actively participated in the
DOCTRINE: The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or, as applied to proceedings thus negating his contention that he was unfairly deprived of his chance to
administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one’s side or an opportunity to seek a present his case.
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. In the application of the principle of
due process, what is sought to be safeguarded is not lack of previous notice but the denial of As records bear out, petitioner was adequately apprised of the charges filed against him and
the opportunity to be heard. As long as a party was given the opportunity to defend his he submitted his answer to the complaint while the case was still under a pre-charge
interests in due course, he was not denied due process. investigation. When the Office of the Legal Service conducted a summary hearing on the
complaint, petitioner was again duly notified of the proceedings and was given an
FACTS: opportunity to explain his side.
 UWTC started operating MMTCs buses. At about the same time, petitioner was
allegedly employed by Atty. Gironella, the general manager appointed by the BOD OTHER DISCUSSION:
of UWTC, as his personal bodyguard.
While the right to cross-examine is a vital element of procedural due process, the
 Respondents further alleged that upon orders of Atty. Gironella, the buses regularly
right does not necessarily require an actual cross examination but merely an opportunity to
driven by them were confiscated by a group led by petitioner. Armed with deadly
exercise this right if desired by the party entitled to it.
weapons petitioner and his group intimidated and harassed respondents.
 Barien, et al. thus prayed for the preventive suspension of petitioner, the
In this case, while MC No. 96-010 provides that the sworn statements of witnesses shall take
confiscation of his firearm and his termination.
the place of oral testimony but shall be subject to cross-examination, petitioner missed this
 The complaint passed an investigation with The Inspector General, Internal Affairs
opportunity precisely because he did not appear at the deadline for the filing of his
Office (TIG-IAO) of the PNP. In his answer, petitioner denied the allegations of the
supplemental answer or counter-affidavit, and accordingly the hearing officer considered the
complaint and averred that it was his twin brother, Reynaldo Gannapao, who
case submitted for decision. And even with the grant of his subsequent motion to be furnished
worked as messenger at UWTC.
with copy of complaint and its annexes, he still failed to file a supplemental answer or
 Subsequently, NAPOLCOM Memorandum was issued, and a summary hearing on
counter-affidavit and instead filed a motion to dismiss reiterating the previous
the complaint was conducted.
recommendation for dismissal made by Atty. Casugbo.
 Petitioner moved to dismiss the complaint. The same was denied.
 PNP Chief Sarmiento rendered his Decision finding petitioner guilty as charged and DISPOSITION: petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the
suspending him for three months from the police service without pay. Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 70605 are hereby AFFIRMED.
 Petitioners MR was likewise denied, thus, he elevated the case to the NAPOLCOM
National Appellate Board. His appeal, however, was dismissed.
 Aggrieved, petitioner brought his case to the DILG but his appeal was denied.
 Petitioner then appealed to the CSC, it was dismissed but the penalty of suspension
was increased to dismissal from service.
 Petitioner filed with the CA a Petition for Review but it was later on denied because
petitioner cannot claim denial of due process since he was given ample opportunity
to present his side.
 CA denied petitioners motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE: W/N the petitioner was denied due process.

RULING+RATIO: NO.

The court held that due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or, as applied to
administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain ones side or an opportunity to seek a