G.R. No. 208261. December 8, 2014.

*
PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. LORENIA P. DE GUZMAN, respondent.

FACTS:

In 2001, PAGCOR hired De Guzman as an Evaluation Specialist and assigned her to the Property and Procurement Department.
In her Personal History Statement (PHS), she did not declare that she has a sister working for PAGCOR as well. However, in
2008, she listed her sister when she updated her PHS. It was also found out that de Guzman had a nephew who worked at
PAGCOR for the period of 2001 to 2005. Upon discovery of these information, de Guzman was sent a Notice of Charges
charging her with Deception or Fraud in Securing Employees Appointment or Promotion. She was directed to show cause
why she should not be subjected to disciplinary action. De Guzman was found administratively liable for the charges filed and
was dismissed. De Guzman appealed before the CSC. CSC ruled in favor of De Guzman on the ground that PAGCOR violated the
respondents right to due process. PAGCOR appealed before CA who affirmed the CSC ruling.

ISSUE: WON the CA correctly affirmed the CSCs dismissal of the administrative disciplinary case against De Guzman on the
ground that she was deprived of her right to due process

HELD:

As a general rule, an appeal is not a matter of right but a mere statutory privilege, and as such, may only be availed in the
manner provided by the law and the rules. Therefore, it must be perfected within the reglementary period. However, exception
is when the appeal is meritorious. In the case at bar, it is clear that PAGCOR was the one who hired the respondent and as such,
only PAGCOR has the power to discipline or remove de Guzman from any transgressions she may have committed. As a
corporate entity, PAGCOR may act through its Board of Directors as well. However, in this case, the formal charge as well as the
memorandum were NULL and VOID since it did not come from PAGCOR or its Board of Directors. Rather, it was from someone
who was not authorized by PAGCOR or any of its Board of Directors. Consequently, De Guzmans removal from PAGCOR
without a valid formal charge was done in violation of her right to due process.