EN BANC

[G.R. No. 141735. June 8, 2005]

SAPPARI K. SAWADJAAN, petitioner, vs. THE HNRA!"E
#$RT % APPEA"S, THE #I&I" SER&I#E
#''ISSIN (n) A"*A'ANAH IN&EST'ENT !ANK
% THE PHI"IPPINES, respondents.
D E # I S I N
#HI#*NA+ARI, J.,
This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court of the Decision
[1]
of the Court of Appeals of 30 arch 1!!!
a"r#in$ Resolutions No% !&'&&(3 and No% !5')*5& of the Ci+il
,er+ice Co##ission -C,C. dated 11 Au$ust 1!!& and 11 April
1!!5/ respecti+el0/ 1hich in turn a"r#ed Resolution No% )30! of
the Board of Directors of the Al'A#anah 2sla#ic 2n+est#ent Ban3
of the 4hilippines -A22B4. dated 13 Dece#5er 1!!3/ 6ndin$
petitioner $uilt0 of Dishonest0 in the 4erfor#ance of 7"cial
Duties and8or Conduct 4re9udicial to the Best 2nterest of the
,er+ice and dis#issin$ hi# fro# the ser+ice/ and its
Resolution
[)]
of 15 Dece#5er 1!!! dis#issin$ petitioner:s otion
for Reconsideration%
The records sho1 that petitioner ,appari ;% ,a1ad9aan 1as
a#on$ the 6rst e#plo0ees of the 4hilippine A#anah Ban3 -4AB.
1hen it 1as created 50 +irtue of 4residential Decree No% )6& on
0) Au$ust 1!*3% <e rose throu$h the ran3s/ 1or3in$ his 1a0 up
fro# his initial desi$nation as securit0 $uard/ to settlin$ cler3/
5oo33eeper/ credit in+esti$ator/ pro9ect anal0st/ appraiser8
inspector/ and e+entuall0/ loans anal0st%
[3]
2n =e5ruar0 1!((/ 1hile still desi$nated as
appraiser8in+esti$ator/ ,a1ad9aan 1as assi$ned to inspect the
properties o>ered as collaterals 50 Co#pressed Air achineries
and E?uip#ent Corporation -CAEC. for a credit line of =i+e
illion 4esos -45/000/000%00.% The properties consisted of t1o
parcels of land co+ered 50 Transfer Certi6cates of Title -TCTs. No%
N'1306*1 and No% C'5)5*6% 7n the 5asis of his 2nspection and
Appraisal Report/
[&]
the 4AB $ranted the loan application% @hen
the loan #atured on 1* a0 1!(!/ CAEC re?uested an
eAtension of 1(0 da0s/ 5ut 1as $ranted onl0 1)0 da0s to repa0
the loan%
[5]
2n the #eanti#e/ ,a1ad9aan 1as pro#oted to Boans Anal0st
2 on 01 Cul0 1!(!%
[6]
2n Canuar0 1!!0/ Con$ress passed Repu5lic Act 6(&( creatin$
the A22B4 and repealin$ 4%D% No% )6& -1hich created the 4AB.% All
assets/ lia5ilities and capital accounts of the 4AB 1ere transferred
to the A22B4/
[*]
and the eAistin$ personnel of the 4AB 1ere to
continue to dischar$e their functions unless dischar$ed%
[(]
2n the
ensuin$ reor$aniDation/ ,a1ad9aan 1as a#on$ the personnel
retained 50 the A22B4%
@hen CAEC failed to pa0 despite the $i+en eAtension/ the
5an3/ no1 referred to as the A22B4/ disco+ered that TCT No% N'
1306*1 1as spurious/ the propert0 descri5ed therein non'
eAistent/ and that the propert0 co+ered 50 TCT No% C'5)5*6 had
a prior eAistin$ #ort$a$e in fa+or of one Di+ina 4a5lico%
7n 0( Cune 1!!3/ the Board of Directors of the A22B4 created
an 2n+esti$atin$ Co##ittee to loo3 into the CAEC transaction/
1hich had cost the 5an3 ,iA illion 4esos -46/000/000%00. in
losses%
[!]
The su5se?uent e+ents/ as found and decided upon 50
the Court of Appeals/
[10]
are as follo1sE
7n 1( Cune 1!!3/ petitioner recei+ed a #e#orandu# fro#
2sla#ic Ban3 [A22B4] Chair#an Ro5erto =% De 7ca#po char$in$
hi# 1ith Dishonest0 in the 4erfor#ance of 7"cial Duties and8or
Conduct 4re9udicial to the Best 2nterest of the ,er+ice and
pre+enti+el0 suspendin$ hi#%
2n his #e#orandu# dated ( ,epte#5er 1!!3/ petitioner
infor#ed the 2n+esti$atin$ Co##ittee that he could not su5#it
hi#self to the 9urisdiction of the Co##ittee 5ecause of its
alle$ed partialit0% =or his failure to appear 5efore the hearin$ set
on 1* ,epte#5er 1!!3/ after the hearin$ of 13 ,epte#5er 1!!3
1as postponed due to the anifestation of e+en date 6led 50
petitioner/ the 2n+esti$atin$ Co##ittee declared petitioner in
default and the prosecution 1as allo1ed to present its
e+idence ex parte%
7n 0( Dece#5er 1!!3/ the 2n+esti$atin$ Co##ittee rendered a
decision/ the pertinent portions of 1hich reads as follo1sE
2n +ie1 of respondent ,A@ADCAAN:, a59ect failure to perfor# his
duties and assi$ned tas3s as appraiser8inspector/ 1hich resulted
to the pre9udice and su5stantial da#a$e to the Ban3/ respondent
should 5e held lia5le therefore% At this 9uncture/ ho1e+er/ the
2n+esti$atin$ Co##ittee is of the considered opinion that he
could not 5e held lia5le for the ad#inistrati+e o>ense of
dishonest0 considerin$ the fact that no e+idence 1as adduced to
sho1 that he pro6ted or 5ene6ted fro# 5ein$ re#iss in the
perfor#ance of his duties% The record is 5ereft of an0 e+idence
1hich 1ould sho1 that he recei+ed an0 a#ount in consideration
for his non'perfor#ance of his o"cial duties%
This not1ithstandin$/ respondent cannot escape lia5ilit0% As
ad+erted to earlier/ his failure to perfor# his o"cial duties
resulted to the pre9udice and su5stantial da#a$e to the 2sla#ic
Ban3 for 1hich he should 5e held lia5le for the ad#inistrati+e
o>ense of C7NDFCT 4RECFD2C2AB T7 T<E BE,T 2NTERE,T 7= T<E
,ERG2CE%
4re#ises considered/ the 2n+esti$atin$ Co##ittee reco##ends
that respondent ,A44AR2 ,A@ADCAAN 5e #eted the penalt0 of
,2H -6. 7NT<, and 7NE -1. DAI ,F,4EN,27N fro# o"ce in
accordance 1ith the Ci+il ,er+ice Co##ission:s e#orandu#
Circular No% 30/ ,eries of 1!(!%
7n 13 Dece#5er 1!!3/ the Board of Directors of the 2sla#ic Ban3
[A22B4] adopted Resolution No% )30! 6ndin$ petitioner $uilt0 of
Dishonest0 in the 4erfor#ance of 7"cial Duties and8or Conduct
4re9udicial to the Best 2nterest of the ,er+ice and i#posin$ the
penalt0 of Dis#issal fro# the ,er+ice%
7n reconsideration/ the Board of Directors of the 2sla#ic Ban3
[A22B4] adopted the Resolution No% )33) on )0 =e5ruar0 1!!&
reducin$ the penalt0 i#posed on petitioner fro# dis#issal to
suspension for a period of siA -6. #onths and one -1. da0%
7n )! arch 1!!&/ petitioner 6led a notice of appeal to the erit
,0ste# 4rotection Board -,4B.%
7n 11 Au$ust 1!!&/ the C,C adopted Resolution No% !&'&&(3
dis#issin$ the appeal for lac3 of #erit and a"r#in$ Resolution
No% )30! dated 13 Dece#5er 1!!3 of the Board of Directors of
2sla#ic Ban3%
7n 11 April 1!!5/ the C,C adopted Resolution No% !5')5*&
den0in$ petitioner:s otion for Reconsideration%
7n 16 Cune 1!!5/ the instant petition 1as 6led 1ith the
<onora5le ,upre#e Court on the follo1in$ assi$n#ent of errorsE
2% 4u5lic respondent Al'A#anah 2sla#ic 2n+est#ent
Ban3 of the 4hilippines has co##itted a $ra+e a5use of
discretion a#ountin$ to eAcess or lac3 of 9urisdiction 1hen it
initiated and conducted ad#inistrati+e in+esti$ation 1ithout a
+alidl0 pro#ul$ated rules of procedure in the ad9udication of
ad#inistrati+e cases at the 2sla#ic Ban3%
22% 4u5lic respondent Ci+il ,er+ice Co##ission has
co##itted a $ra+e a5use of discretion a#ountin$ to lac3 of
9urisdiction 1hen it pre#aturel0 and falsel0 assu#ed 9urisdiction
of the case not appealed to it/ 5ut to the erit ,0ste# 4rotection
Board%
222% Both the 2sla#ic Ban3 and the Ci+il ,er+ice
Co##ission erred in 6ndin$ petitioner ,a1ad9aan of ha+in$
deli5eratel0 reportin$ false infor#ation and therefore $uilt0 of
Dishonest0 and Conduct 4re9udicial to the Best 2nterest of the
,er+ice and penaliDed 1ith dis#issal fro# the ser+ice%
7n 0& Cul0 1!!5/ the <onora5le ,upre#e Court En Banc referred
this petition to this <onora5le Court pursuant to Re+ised
Ad#inistrati+e Circular No% 1'!5/ 1hich too3 e>ect on 01 Cune
1!!5%
@e do not 6nd #erit [in] the petition%
Anent the 6rst assi$n#ent of error/ a readin$ of the records
1ould re+eal that petitioner raises for the 6rst ti#e the alle$ed
failure of the 2sla#ic Ban3 [A22B4] to pro#ul$ate rules of
procedure $o+ernin$ the ad9udication and disposition of
ad#inistrati+e cases in+ol+in$ its personnel% 2t is a rule that
issues not properl0 5rou$ht and +entilated 5elo1 #a0 not 5e
raised for the 6rst ti#e on appeal/ sa+e in eAceptional
circu#stances -Casolita, Sr. v. Court of Appeals/ )*5 ,CRA )5*.
none of 1hich/ ho1e+er/ o5tain in this case%
Jrantin$ arguendo that the issue is of such eAceptional character
that the Court #a0 ta3e co$niDance of the sa#e/ still/ it #ust
fail% ,ection )6 of Repu5lic Act No% 6(&( -1!!0. pro+idesE
,ection )6% 4o1ers of the Board% The Board of Directors shall
ha+e the broadest powers to manage the Islamic Bank/ A A A The
Board shall adopt polic0 $uidelines necessar0 to carr0 out
e>ecti+el0 the pro+isions of this Charter as 1ell as internal rules
and regulations necessar0 for the conduct of its 2sla#ic 5an3in$
5usiness and all #atters related to personnel organiation, o!ce
functions and salar" administration% -2talics ours.
7n the other hand/ 2te# No% ) of EAecuti+e 7rder No% )6 -1!!).
entitled K4rescri5in$ 4rocedure and ,anctions to Ensure ,peed0
Disposition of Ad#inistrati+e CasesL directs/ Kall ad#inistrati+e
a$enciesL to Kadopt and include in their respecti+e Rules of
4rocedureL pro+isions desi$ned to a55re+iate ad#inistrati+e
proceedin$s%
The a5o+e t1o -). pro+isions relied upon 50 petitioner does not
re?uire the 2sla#ic Ban3 [A22B4] to pro#ul$ate rules of procedure
5efore ad#inistrati+e discipline #a0 5e i#posed upon its
e#plo0ees% The internal rules of procedures ordained to 5e
adopted 50 the Board refers to that necessar0 for the conduct of
its 2sla#ic 5an3in$ 5usiness and all #atters related to Kpersonnel
or$aniDation/ o"ce functions and salar0 ad#inistration%L 7n the
contrar0/ ,ection )6 of RA 6(&( $i+es the Board of Directors of
the 2sla#ic Ban3 the K5roadest po1ers to #ana$e the 2sla#ic
Ban3%L This $rant of 5road po1ers 1ould 5e an idle cere#on0 if
it 1ould 5e po1erless to discipline its e#plo0ees%
The second assi$n#ent of error #ust li3e1ise fail% The issue is
raised for the 6rst ti#e via this petition for certiorari% 4etitioner
su5#itted hi#self to the 9urisdiction of the C,C% Althou$h he
could ha+e raised the alle$ed lac3 of 9urisdiction in his otion for
Reconsideration of Resolution No% !&'&&(3 of the C,C/ he did not
do so% B0 6lin$ the otion for Reconsideration/ he is estopped
fro# den0in$ the C,C:s 9urisdiction o+er hi#/ as it is settled rule
that a part0 1ho as3s for an a"r#ati+e relief cannot later on
i#pu$n the action of the tri5unal as 1ithout 9urisdiction after an
ad+erse result 1as #eted to hi#% Althou$h 9urisdiction o+er the
su59ect #atter of a case #a0 5e o59ected to at an0 sta$e of the
proceedin$s e+en on appeal/ this particular rule/ ho1e+er/ #eans
that 9urisdictional issues in a case can 5e raised onl0 durin$ the
proceedin$s in said case and durin$ the appeal of said case
-Aragon v. Court of Appeals/ )*0 ,CRA 603.% The case at 5ar is a
petition [for] certiorari and not an appeal%
But e+en on the #erits the ar$u#ent #ust falter% 2te# No% 1 of
C,C Resolution No% !3')3(* dated )! Cune 1!!3/ pro+idesE
Decisions in ad#inistrati+e cases in+ol+in$ o"cials and
e#plo0ees of the ci+il ser+ice appeala5le to the Co##ission
pursuant to ,ection &* of Boo3 G of the Code -i.e%/ Ad#inistrati+e
Code of 1!(*. includin$ personnel actions such as contested
appoint#ents shall no1 5e appealed directl0 to the Co##ission
and not to the ,4B%
2n #ubenecia v. Civil Service Commission, )&& ,CRA 6&0/ 651/ it
1as cate$oricall0 heldE
% % % The functions of the ,4B relatin$ to the deter#ination of
ad#inistrati+e disciplinar0 cases 1ere/ in other 1ords/ re'
allocated to the Co##ission itself%
Be that as it #a0/ K-i.t is horn5oo3 doctrine that in order M-t.o
ascertain 1hether a court -in this case/ ad#inistrati+e a$enc0.
has 9urisdiction or not/ the pro+isions of the la1 should 5e
in?uired into%: =urther#ore/ Mthe 9urisdiction of the court #ust
appear clearl0 fro# the statute la1 or it 1ill not 5e held to
eAist%:L-Aarcon v. Sandiganba"an/ )6( ,CRA *&*/ *5*. =ro# the
pro+ision of la1 a5o+ecited/ the Ci+il ,er+ice Co##ission clearl0
has 9urisdiction o+er the Ad#inistrati+e Case a$ainst petitioner%
Anent the third assi$n#ent of error/ 1e li3e1ise do not 6nd #erit
in petitioner:s proposition that he should not 5e lia5le/ as in the
6rst place/ he 1as not ?uali6ed to perfor# the functions of
appraiser8in+esti$ator 5ecause he lac3ed the necessar0 trainin$
and eApertise/ and therefore/ should not ha+e 5een found
dishonest 50 the Board of Directors of 2sla#ic Ban3 [A22B4] and
the C,C% 4etitioner hi#self ad#its that the position of
appraiser8inspector is Kone of the #ost serious [and] sensiti+e 9o5
in the 5an3in$ operations%L <e should ha+e 5een a1are that
acceptin$ such a desi$nation/ he is o5li$ed to perfor# the tas3 at
hand 50 the eAercise of #ore than ordinar0 prudence% As
appraiser8in+esti$ator/ he is eApected/ a#on$ others/ to chec3
the authenticit0 of the docu#ents presented 50 the 5orro1er 50
co#parin$ the# 1ith the ori$inals on 6le 1ith the proper
$o+ern#ent o"ce% <e should ha+e #ade it sure that the
technical descriptions in the location plan on 6le 1ith the Bureau
of Bands of ari3ina/ 9i5e 1ith that indicated in the TCT of the
collateral o>ered 50 CAEC/ and that the #ort$a$e in fa+or of
the 2sla#ic Ban3 1as dul0 annotated at the 5ac3 of the cop0 of
the TCT 3ept 50 the Re$ister of Deeds of ari3ina% This/
petitioner failed to do/ for 1hich he #ust 5e held lia5le% That he
did not pro6t fro# his false report is of no #o#ent% Neither the
fact that it 1as not deli5erate or 1illful/ detracts fro# the nature
of the act as dishonest% @hat is apparent is he stated so#ethin$
to 5e a fact/ 1hen he reall0 1as not sure that it 1as so%
@<ERE=7RE/ a5o+e pre#ises considered/ the instant 4etition is
D2,2,,ED/ and the assailed Resolutions of the Ci+il ,er+ice
Co##ission are here50 A==2RED%
7n )& arch 1!!!/ ,a1ad9aan:s counsel noti6ed the court a
$uo of his chan$e of address/
[11]
5ut apparentl0 ne$lected to
notif0 his client of this fact% Thus/ on )3 Cul0 1!!!/ ,a1ad9aan/ 50
hi#self/ 6led a otion for Ne1 Trial
[1)]
in the Court of Appeals
5ased on the follo1in$ $roundsE fraud/ accident/ #ista3e or
eAcusa5le ne$li$ence and ne1l0 disco+ered e+idence% <e
clai#ed that he had recentl0 disco+ered that at the ti#e his
e#plo0#ent 1as ter#inated/ the A22B4 had not 0et adopted its
corporate 50'la1s% <e attached a Certi6cation
[13]
50 the
,ecurities and EAchan$e Co##ission -,EC. that it 1as onl0 on )*
a0 1!!) that the A22B4 su5#itted its draft 50'la1s to the ,EC/
and that its re$istration 1as 5ein$ held in a5e0ance pendin$
certain corrections 5ein$ #ade thereon% ,a1ad9aan ar$ued that
since the A22B4 failed to 6le its 50'la1s 1ithin 60 da0s fro# the
passa$e of Rep% Act No% 6(&(/ as re?uired 50 ,ec% 51 of the said
la1/ the 5an3 and its stoc3holders had Kalread0 forfeited its
franchise or charter/ includin$ its license to eAist and operate as
a corporation/L
[1&]
and thus no lon$er ha+e Kthe le$al standin$
and personalit0 to initiate an ad#inistrati+e case%L
,a1ad9aan:s counsel su5se?uentl0 adopted his #otion/ 5ut
re?uested that it 5e treated as a #otion for reconsideration%
[15]
This #otion 1as denied 50 the court a $uo in its Resolution of
15 Dece#5er 1!!!%
[16]
,till disheartened/ ,a1ad9aan 6led the present petition
for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court challen$in$ the
a5o+e Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals on the
$round that the court a $uo erredE i. in i$norin$ the facts and
e+idences that the alle$ed 2sla#ic Ban3 has no +alid 50'la1sN ii.
in i$norin$ the facts and e+idences that the 2sla#ic Ban3 lost its
9uridical personalit0 as a corporation on 16 April 1!!0N iii. in
i$norin$ the facts and e+idences that the alle$ed 2sla#ic Ban3
and its alle$ed Board of Directors ha+e no 9urisdiction to act in
the #anner the0 did in the a5sence of a +alid 50'la1sN i+. in not
correctin$ the acts of the Ci+il ,er+ice Co##ission 1ho
erroneousl0 rendered the assailed Resolutions No% !&'&&(3 and
No% !5')*5& as a result of fraud/ falsi6cation and8or
#isrepresentations co##itted 50 =arou3 A% CarpiDo and his
$roup/ includin$ Ro5erto =% de 7ca#poN +. in a"r#in$ an
unconsciona5l0 harsh and8or eAcessi+e penalt0N and +i. in failin$
to consider ne1l0 disco+ered e+idence and re+erse its decision
accordin$l0%
,u5se?uentl0/ petitioner ,a1ad9aan 6led an KEx%parte Fr$ent
otion for Additional EAtension of Ti#e to =ile a Repl0 -to the
Co##ents of Respondent Al'A#anah 2n+est#ent Ban3 of the
4hilippines./
[1*]
Repl0 -to Respondent:s Consolidated Co##ent/.
[1(]
and Repl0 -to the Alle$ed Co##ents of Respondent Al'
A#anah 2sla#ic Ban3 of the 4hilippines.%L
[1!]
7n 13 7cto5er
)000/ he infor#ed this Court that he had ter#inated his la10er:s
ser+ices/ and/ 50 hi#self/ prepared and 6led the follo1in$E 1.
otion for Ne1 TrialN
[)0]
). otion to Declare Respondents in
Default and8or <a+in$ @ai+ed their Ri$hts to 2nterpose 759ection
to 4etitioner:s otion for Ne1 TrialN
[)1]
3. Ex%&arte Fr$ent otions
to 4unish Attorne0s A#ado D% GaldeD/ Elpidio C% Ge$a/ Alda J%
Re0es/ Do#inador R% 2sidoro/ Cr%/ and 7dilon A% DiaD for Bein$ in
Conte#pt of Court O to 2nhi5it the# fro# Appearin$ in this Case
Fntil the0 Can 4resent Galid E+idence of Be$al Authorit0N
[))]
&.
7pposition8Repl0 -to Respondent A22B4:s Alle$ed Co##ent.N
[)3]
5. Ex%&arte Fr$ent otion to 4unish Att0% Re0naldo A% 4ineda
for Conte#pt of Court and the 2ssuance of a Co##it#ent
7rder8@arrant for <is ArrestN
[)&]
6. Repl087pposition -To the
=or#al Notice of @ithdra1al of Fndersi$ned Counsel as Be$al
Counsel for the Respondent 2sla#ic Ban3 1ith 7pposition to
4etitioner:s otion to 4unish Fndersi$ned Counsel for Conte#pt
of Court for the 2ssuance of a @arrant of Arrest.N
[)5]
*.
e#orandu# for 4etitionerN
[)6]
(. 7pposition to ,olJen:s otion
for Clari6cation 1ith otion for Default and8or @ai+er of
Respondents to =ile their e#orandu#N
[)*]
!. otion for
Conte#pt of Court and 2nhi5ition8Dis?uali6cation 1ith 7pposition
to 7JCC:s otion for EAtension of Ti#e to =ile e#orandu#N
[)(]
10. otion for Enforce#ent -2n Defense of the Rule of Ba1.N
[)!]
11. otion and 7pposition -otion to 4unish 7JCC:s Attorne0s
A#ado D% GaldeD/ Efren B% JonDales/ Alda J% Re0es/ 7dilon A%
DiaD and Do#inador R% 2sidoro/ Cr%/ for Conte#pt of Court and the
2ssuance of a @arrant for their ArrestN and 7pposition to their
Alle$ed Kanifestation and otionL Dated =e5ruar0 5/ )00).N
[30]
1). otion for Reconsideration of 2te# -a. of Resolution dated
5 =e5ruar0 )00) 1ith ,upple#ental otion for Conte#pt of
CourtN
[31]
13. otion for Reconsideration of 4ortion of Resolution
Dated 1) arch )00)N
[3)]
1&. EA'4arte Fr$ent otion for
EAtension of Ti#e to =ile Repl0 e#orandu# -ToE C,C and A22B4:s
e#orandu#.N
[33]
15. Repl0 e#orandu# -ToE C,C:s
e#orandu#. @ith EA'4arte Fr$ent otion for Additional
EAtension of ti#e to =ile Repl0 e#orandu# -ToE A22B4:s
e#orandu#.N
[3&]
and 16. Repl0 e#orandu# -ToE 7JCC:s
e#orandu# for Respondent A22B4.%
[35]
4etitioner:s e>orts are una+ailin$/ and 1e den0 his petition
for its procedural and su5stanti+e Pa1s%
The $eneral rule is that the re#ed0 to o5tain re+ersal or
#odi6cation of the 9ud$#ent on the #erits is appeal% This is true
e+en if the error/ or one of the errors/ ascri5ed to the court
renderin$ the 9ud$#ent is its lac3 of 9urisdiction o+er the su59ect
#atter/ or the eAercise of po1er in eAcess thereof/ or $ra+e
a5use of discretion in the 6ndin$s of fact or of la1 set out in the
decision%
[36]
The records sho1 that petitioner:s counsel recei+ed the
Resolution of the Court of Appeals den0in$ his #otion for
reconsideration on )* Dece#5er 1!!!% The 6fteen da0
re$la#entar0 period to appeal under Rule &5 of the Rules of
Court therefore lapsed on 11 Canuar0 )000% 7n )3 =e5ruar0
)000/ o+er a #onth after receipt of the resolution den0in$ his
#otion for reconsideration/ the petitioner 6led his petition
for certiorari under Rule 65%
2t is settled that a special ci+il action for certiorari 1ill not lie
as a su5stitute for the lost re#ed0 of appeal/
[3*]
and thou$h there
are instances
[3(]
1here the eAtraordinar0 re#ed0 of certiorari #a0
5e resorted to despite the a+aila5ilit0 of an appeal/
[3!]
1e 6nd no
special reasons for #a3in$ out an eAception in this case%
E+en if 1e 1ere to o+erloo3 this fact in the 5roader interests
of 9ustice and treat this as a special ci+il action
for certiorari under Rule 65/
[&0]
the petition 1ould ne+ertheless 5e
dis#issed for failure of the petitioner to sho1 $ra+e a5use of
discretion% 4etitioner:s recurrent ar$u#ent/ tenuous at its +er0
5est/ is pre#ised on the fact that since respondent A22B4 failed to
6le its 50'la1s 1ithin the desi$nated 60 da0s fro# the e>ecti+it0
of Rep% Act No% 6(&(/ all proceedin$s initiated 50 A22B4 and all
actions resultin$ therefro# are a patent nullit0% 7r/ in his 1ords/
the A22B4 and its o"cers and Board of Directors/
% % % [<]a+e no le$al authorit0 nor 9urisdiction to #ana$e #uch
less operate the 2sla#ic Ban3/ 6le ad#inistrati+e char$es and
in+esti$ate petitioner in the #anner the0 did and alle$edl0
passed Board Resolution No% )30! on Dece#5er 13/ 1!!3 1hich
is null and +oid for lac3 of an - sic' authoriDed and +alid 50'la1s%
The C2G2B ,ERG2CE C72,,27N 1as therefore a"r#in$/
erroneousl0/ a null and +oid KResolution No% )30! dated
Dece#5er 13/ 1!!3 of the Board of Directors of Al'A#anah
2sla#ic 2n+est#ent Ban3 of the 4hilippinesL in C,C Resolution No%
!&'&&(3 dated Au$ust 11/ 1!!&% A #otion for reconsideration
thereof 1as denied 50 the C,C in its Resolution No% !5')*5&
dated April 11/ 1!!5% Both acts8resolutions of the C,C are
erroneous/ resultin$ fro# fraud/ falsi6cations and
#isrepresentations of the alle$ed Chair#an and CE7 Ro5erto =%
de 7ca#po and the alle$ed Director =arou3 A% CarpiDo and his
$roup at the alle$ed 2sla#ic Ban3%
[&1]
No1here in petitioner:s +olu#inous pleadin$s is there a
sho1in$ that the court a $uo co##itted $ra+e a5use of
discretion a#ountin$ to lac3 or eAcess of 9urisdiction re+ersi5le
50 a petition for certiorari% 4etitioner alread0 raised the ?uestion
of A22B4:s corporate eAistence and lac3 of 9urisdiction in his
otion for Ne1 Trial8otion for Reconsideration of )* a0 1!!*
and 1as denied 50 the Court of Appeals% Despite the +olu#e of
pleadin$s he has su5#itted thus far/ he has added nothin$
su5stantial to his ar$u#ents%
The A22B4 1as created 50 Rep% Act No% 6(&(% 2t has a #ain
o"ce 1here it conducts 5usiness/ has shareholders/ corporate
o"cers/ a 5oard of directors/ assets/ and personnel% 2t is/ in fact/
here represented 50 the 7"ce of the Jo+ern#ent Corporate
Counsel/ Kthe principal la1 o"ce of $o+ern#ent'o1ned
corporations/ one of 1hich is respondent 5an3%L
[&)]
At the +er0
least/ 50 its failure to su5#it its 50'la1s on ti#e/ the A22B4 #a0
5e considered a de facto corporation
[&3]
1hose ri$ht to eAercise
corporate po1ers #a0 not 5e in?uired into collaterall0 in an0
pri+ate suit to 1hich such corporations #a0 5e a part0%
[&&]
oreo+er/ a corporation 1hich has failed to 6le its 50'la1s
1ithin the prescri5ed period does not ipso facto lose its po1ers
as such% The ,EC Rules on ,uspension8Re+ocation of the
Certi6cate of Re$istration of Corporations/
[&5]
details the
procedures and re#edies that #a0 5e a+ailed of 5efore an order
of re+ocation can 5e issued% There is no sho1in$ that such a
procedure has 5een initiated in this case%
2n an0 case/ petitioner:s ar$u#ent is irrele+ant 5ecause this
case is not a corporate contro+ers0/ 5ut a la5or disputeN and it is
an e#plo0er:s 5asic ri$ht to freel0 select or dischar$e its
e#plo0ees/ if onl0 as a #easure of self'protection a$ainst acts
ini#ical to its interest%
[&6]
Re$ardless of 1hether A22B4 is a
corporation/ a partnership/ a sole proprietorship/ or a sari%
sari store/ it is an undisputed fact that A22B4 is the petitioner:s
e#plo0er% A22B4 chose to retain his ser+ices durin$ its
reor$aniDation/ controlled the #eans and #ethods 50 1hich his
1or3 1as to 5e perfor#ed/ paid his 1a$es/ and/ e+entuall0/
ter#inated his ser+ices%
[&*]
And thou$h he has had a#ple opportunit0 to do so/ the
petitioner has not alle$ed that he is an0thin$ other than an
e#plo0ee of A22B4% <e has neither clai#ed/ nor sho1n/ that he is
a stoc3holder or an o"cer of the corporation% <a+in$ accepted
e#plo0#ent fro# A22B4/ and rendered his ser+ices to the said
5an3/ recei+ed his salar0/ and accepted the pro#otion $i+en hi#/
it is no1 too late in the da0 for petitioner to ?uestion its eAistence
and its po1er to ter#inate his ser+ices% 7ne 1ho assu#es an
o5li$ation to an ostensi5le corporation as such/ cannot resist
perfor#ance thereof on the $round that there 1as in fact no
corporation%
[&(]
E+en if 1e 1ere to consider the facts 5ehind petitioner
,a1ad9aan:s dis#issal fro# ser+ice/ 1e 1ould 5e hard pressed to
6nd error in the decision of the A22B4%
As appraiser8in+esti$ator/ the petitioner 1as eApected to
conduct an ocular inspection of the properties o>ered 50 CAEC
as collaterals and chec3 the copies of the certi6cates of title
a$ainst those on 6le 1ith the Re$istr0 of Deeds% Not onl0 did he
fail to conduct these routine chec3s/ 5ut he also deli5eratel0
#isrepresented in his appraisal report that after re+ie1in$ the
docu#ents and conductin$ a site inspection/ he found the CAEC
loan application to 5e in order% Despite the nu#5er of pleadin$s
he has 6led/ he has failed to o>er an alternati+e eAplanation for
his actions%
@hen he 1as infor#ed of the char$es a$ainst hi# and
directed to appear and present his side on the #atter/ the
petitioner sent instead a #e#orandu# ?uestionin$ the fairness
and i#partialit0 of the #e#5ers of the in+esti$atin$ co##ittee
and refusin$ to reco$niDe their 9urisdiction o+er hi#%
Ne+ertheless/ the in+esti$atin$ co##ittee rescheduled the
hearin$ to $i+e the petitioner another chance/ 5ut he still refused
to appear 5efore it%
Thereafter/ 1itnesses 1ere presented/ and a decision 1as
rendered 6ndin$ hi# $uilt0 of dishonest0 and dis#issin$ hi#
fro# ser+ice% <e sou$ht a reconsideration of this decision and
the sa#e co##ittee 1hose i#partialit0 he ?uestioned reduced
their reco##ended penalt0 to suspension for siA #onths and one
da0% The 5oard of directors/ ho1e+er/ opted to dis#iss hi# fro#
ser+ice%
7n appeal to the C,C/ the Co##ission found that
,a1ad9aan:s failure to perfor# his o"cial duties $reatl0
pre9udiced the A22B4/ for 1hich he should 5e held accounta5le% 2t
held thatE
% % % -2.t is cr0stal clear that respondent ,A44AR2 ,A@ADCAAN 1as
re#iss in the perfor#ance of his duties as appraiser8inspector%
<ad respondent perfor#ed his duties as appraiser8inspector/ he
could ha+e easil0 noticed that the propert0 located at Balinta1a3/
Caloocan Cit0 co+ered 50 TCT No% C'5)5*6 and 1hich is one of
the properties o>ered as collateral 50 CAEC is encu#5ered to
Di+ina 4a5lico% <ad respondent rePected such fact in his
appraisal8inspection report on said propert0 the 2,BA2C BAN;
1ould not ha+e appro+ed CAEC:s loan of 4500/000%00 in 1!(*
and CAEC:s 45 illion loan in 1!((/ respondent 3no1in$ full0
1ell the Ban3:s polic0 of not acceptin$ encu#5ered properties as
collateral%
Respondent ,A@ADCAAN:s reprehensi5le act is further
a$$ra+ated 1hen he failed to chec3 and +erif0 fro# the Re$istr0
of Deeds of ari3ina the authenticit0 of the propert0 located at
a0a#ot/ Antipolo/ RiDal co+ered 50 TCT No% N'1306*1 and
1hich is one of the properties o>ered as collateral 50 CAEC for
its 45 illion loan in 1!((% 2f he onl0 +isited and +eri6ed 1ith the
Re$ister of Deeds of ari3ina the authenticit0 of TCT No% N'
1306*1 he could ha+e easil0 disco+ered that TCT No% N'1306*1 is
fa3e and the propert0 descri5ed therein non'eAistent%
% % %
This not1ithstandin$/ respondent cannot escape lia5ilit0% As
ad+erted to earlier/ his failure to perfor# his o"cial duties
resulted to the pre9udice and su5stantial da#a$e to the 2,BA2C
BAN; for 1hich he should 5e held lia5le for the ad#inistrati+e
o>ense of C7NDFCT 4RECFD2C2AB T7 T<E BE,T 2NTERE,T 7= T<E
,ERG2CE%
[&!]
=ro# the fore$oin$/ 1e 6nd that the C,C and the court a
$uo co##itted no $ra+e a5use of discretion 1hen the0 sustained
,a1ad9aan:s dis#issal fro# ser+ice% Jra+e a5use of discretion
i#plies such capricious and 1hi#sical eAercise of 9ud$#ent as
e?ui+alent to lac3 of 9urisdiction/ or/ in other 1ords/ 1here the
po1er is eAercised in an ar5itrar0 or despotic #anner 50 reason
of passion or personal hostilit0/ and it #ust 5e so patent and
$ross as to a#ount to an e+asion of positi+e dut0 or to a +irtual
refusal to perfor# the dut0 en9oined or to act at all in
conte#plation of la1%
[50]
The records sho1 that the respondents
did none of theseN the0 acted in accordance 1ith the la1%
WHERE%RE/ the petition is D2,2,,ED% The Decision of
the Court of Appeals of 30 arch 1!!! a"r#in$ Resolutions No%
!&'&&(3 and No% !5')*5& of the Ci+il ,er+ice Co##ission/ and its
Resolution of 15 Dece#5er 1!!! are here50 A==2RED% Costs
a$ainst the petitioner%
S RDERED.
(avide, )r., C.)., &anganiban, *uisumbing, +nares%Santiago,
Sandoval%,utierre, Carpio, Austria%-artine, Corona, Carpio%
-orales, Calle.o, Sr., Acuna, /inga, and ,arcia, ))., concur.
&uno, )., on o"cial lea+e.