TodayisMonday,March06,2017

CustomSearch

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

ENBANC

G.R.No.141735June8,2005

SAPPARIK.SAWADJAAN,petitioner,
vs.
THEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALS,THECIVILSERVICECOMMISSIONandALAMANAHINVESTMENT
BANKOFTHEPHILIPPINES,respondents.

DECISION

CHICONAZARIO,J.:

ThisisapetitionforcertiorariunderRule65oftheRulesofCourtoftheDecision1oftheCourtofAppealsof30
March1999affirmingResolutionsNo.944483andNo.952754oftheCivilServiceCommission(CSC)dated11
August1994and11April1995,respectively,whichinturnaffirmedResolutionNo.2309oftheBoardofDirectors
oftheAlAmanahIslamicInvestmentBankofthePhilippines(AIIBP)dated13December1993,findingpetitioner
guilty of Dishonesty in the Performance of Official Duties and/or Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the
Service and dismissing him from the service, and its Resolution2 of 15 December 1999 dismissing petitioners
MotionforReconsideration.

TherecordsshowthatpetitionerSappariK.SawadjaanwasamongthefirstemployeesofthePhilippineAmanah
Bank(PAB)whenitwascreatedbyvirtueofPresidentialDecreeNo.264on02August1973.Herosethroughthe
ranks, working his way up from his initial designation as security guard, to settling clerk, bookkeeper, credit
investigator,projectanalyst,appraiser/inspector,andeventually,loansanalyst.3

In February 1988, while still designated as appraiser/investigator, Sawadjaan was assigned to inspect the
properties offered as collaterals by Compressed Air Machineries and Equipment Corporation (CAMEC) for a
credit line of Five Million Pesos (P5,000,000.00). The properties consisted of two parcels of land covered by
TransferCertificatesofTitle(TCTs)No.N130671andNo.C52576.OnthebasisofhisInspectionandAppraisal
Report,4 the PAB granted the loan application. When the loan matured on 17 May 1989, CAMEC requested an
extensionof180days,butwasgrantedonly120daystorepaytheloan.5

Inthemeantime,SawadjaanwaspromotedtoLoansAnalystIon01July1989.6

In January 1990, Congress passed Republic Act 6848 creating the AIIBP and repealing P.D. No. 264 (which
created the PAB). All assets, liabilities and capital accounts of the PAB were transferred to the AIIBP,7 and the
existing personnel of the PAB were to continue to discharge their functions unless discharged.8 In the ensuing
reorganization,SawadjaanwasamongthepersonnelretainedbytheAIIBP.

WhenCAMECfailedtopaydespitethegivenextension,thebank,nowreferredtoastheAIIBP,discoveredthat
TCTNo.N130671wasspurious,thepropertydescribedthereinnonexistent,andthatthepropertycoveredby
TCTNo.C52576hadapriorexistingmortgageinfavorofoneDivinaPablico.

On08June1993,theBoardofDirectorsoftheAIIBPcreatedanInvestigatingCommitteetolookintotheCAMEC
transaction, which had cost the bank Six Million Pesos (P6,000,000.00) in losses.9 The subsequent events, as
foundanddecideduponbytheCourtofAppeals,10areasfollows:

On 18 June 1993, petitioner received a memorandum from Islamic Bank [AIIBP] Chairman Roberto F. De
OcampocharginghimwithDishonestyinthePerformanceofOfficialDutiesand/orConductPrejudicialtotheBest
InterestoftheServiceandpreventivelysuspendinghim.

Inhismemorandumdated8September1993,petitionerinformedtheInvestigatingCommitteethathecouldnot
submithimselftothejurisdictionoftheCommitteebecauseofitsallegedpartiality.Forhisfailuretoappearbefore
the hearing set on 17 September 1993, after the hearing of 13 September 1993 was postponed due to the
Manifestationofevendatefiledbypetitioner,theInvestigatingCommitteedeclaredpetitionerindefaultandthe
prosecutionwasallowedtopresentitsevidenceexparte.

On08December1993,theInvestigatingCommitteerenderedadecision,thepertinentportionsofwhichreadsas
follows:

In view of respondent SAWADJAANS abject failure to perform his duties and assigned tasks as
appraiser/inspector, which resulted to the prejudice and substantial damage to the Bank, respondent should be
heldliabletherefore.Atthisjuncture,however,theInvestigatingCommitteeisoftheconsideredopinionthathe
could not be held liable for the administrative offense of dishonesty considering the fact that no evidence was
adducedtoshowthatheprofitedorbenefitedfrombeingremissintheperformanceofhisduties.Therecordis
bereftofanyevidencewhichwouldshowthathereceivedanyamountinconsiderationforhisnonperformance
ofhisofficialduties.

This notwithstanding, respondent cannot escape liability. As adverted to earlier, his failure to perform his official
dutiesresultedtotheprejudiceandsubstantialdamagetotheIslamicBankforwhichheshouldbeheldliablefor
theadministrativeoffenseofCONDUCTPREJUDICIALTOTHEBESTINTERESTOFTHESERVICE.

Premises considered, the Investigating Committee recommends that respondent SAPPARI SAWADJAAN be
metedthepenaltyofSIX(6)MONTHSandONE(1)DAYSUSPENSIONfromofficeinaccordancewiththeCivil
ServiceCommissionsMemorandumCircularNo.30,Seriesof1989.

On 13 December 1993, the Board of Directors of the Islamic Bank [AIIBP] adopted Resolution No. 2309 finding
petitionerguiltyofDishonestyinthePerformanceofOfficialDutiesand/orConductPrejudicialtotheBestInterest
oftheServiceandimposingthepenaltyofDismissalfromtheService.

On reconsideration, the Board of Directors of the Islamic Bank [AIIBP] adopted the Resolution No. 2332 on 20
February 1994 reducing the penalty imposed on petitioner from dismissal to suspension for a period of six (6)
monthsandone(1)day.

On29March1994,petitionerfiledanoticeofappealtotheMeritSystemProtectionBoard(MSPB).

On 11 August 1994, the CSC adopted Resolution No. 944483 dismissing the appeal for lack of merit and
affirmingResolutionNo.2309dated13December1993oftheBoardofDirectorsofIslamicBank.

On11April1995,theCSCadoptedResolutionNo.952574denyingpetitionersMotionforReconsideration.

On16June1995,theinstantpetitionwasfiledwiththeHonorableSupremeCourtonthefollowingassignmentof
errors:

I.PublicrespondentAlAmanahIslamicInvestmentBankofthePhilippineshascommittedagraveabuseof
discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction when it initiated and conducted administrative
investigationwithoutavalidlypromulgatedrulesofprocedureintheadjudicationofadministrativecasesat
theIslamicBank.

II. Public respondent Civil Service Commission has committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lackofjurisdictionwhenitprematurelyandfalselyassumedjurisdictionofthecasenotappealedtoit,butto
theMeritSystemProtectionBoard.

III.BoththeIslamicBankandtheCivilServiceCommissionerredinfindingpetitionerSawadjaanofhaving
deliberately reporting false information and therefore guilty of Dishonesty and Conduct Prejudicial to the
BestInterestoftheServiceandpenalizedwithdismissalfromtheservice.

On04July1995,theHonorableSupremeCourtEnBancreferredthispetitiontothisHonorableCourtpursuantto
RevisedAdministrativeCircularNo.195,whichtookeffecton01June1995.

Wedonotfindmerit[in]thepetition.

Anentthefirstassignmentoferror,areadingoftherecordswouldrevealthatpetitionerraisesforthefirsttimethe
alleged failure of the Islamic Bank [AIIBP] to promulgate rules of procedure governing the adjudication and
disposition of administrative cases involving its personnel. It is a rule that issues not properly brought and
ventilatedbelowmaynotberaisedforthefirsttimeonappeal,saveinexceptionalcircumstances(Casolita,Sr.v.
CourtofAppeals,275SCRA257)noneofwhich,however,obtaininthiscase.Grantingarguendothattheissueis
of such exceptional character that the Court may take cognizance of the same, still, it must fail. Section 26 of
RepublicActNo.6848(1990)provides:
Section26.PowersoftheBoard.TheBoardofDirectorsshallhavethebroadestpowerstomanagetheIslamic
Bank,xxxTheBoardshalladoptpolicyguidelinesnecessarytocarryouteffectivelytheprovisionsofthisCharter
aswellasinternalrulesandregulationsnecessaryfortheconductofitsIslamicbankingbusinessandallmatters
relatedtopersonnelorganization,officefunctionsandsalaryadministration.(Italicsours)

Ontheotherhand,ItemNo.2ofExecutiveOrderNo.26(1992)entitled"PrescribingProcedureandSanctionsto
EnsureSpeedyDispositionofAdministrativeCases"directs,"alladministrativeagencies"to"adoptandincludein
theirrespectiveRulesofProcedure"provisionsdesignedtoabbreviateadministrativeproceedings.

The above two (2) provisions relied upon by petitioner does not require the Islamic Bank [AIIBP] to promulgate
rules of procedure before administrative discipline may be imposed upon its employees. The internal rules of
proceduresordainedtobeadoptedbytheBoardreferstothatnecessaryfortheconductofitsIslamicbanking
business and all matters related to "personnel organization, office functions and salary administration." On the
contrary,Section26ofRA6848givestheBoardofDirectorsoftheIslamicBankthe"broadestpowerstomanage
theIslamicBank."Thisgrantofbroadpowerswouldbeanidleceremonyifitwouldbepowerlesstodisciplineits
employees.

The second assignment of error must likewise fail. The issue is raised for the first time via this petition for
certiorari. Petitioner submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the CSC. Although he could have raised the alleged
lackofjurisdictioninhisMotionforReconsiderationofResolutionNo.944483oftheCSC,hedidnotdoso.By
filingtheMotionforReconsideration,heisestoppedfromdenyingtheCSCsjurisdictionoverhim,asitissettled
rule that a party who asks for an affirmative relief cannot later on impugn the action of the tribunal as without
jurisdictionafteranadverseresultwasmetedtohim.Althoughjurisdictionoverthesubjectmatterofacasemay
be objected to at any stage of the proceedings even on appeal, this particular rule, however, means that
jurisdictional issues in a case can be raised only during the proceedings in said case and during the appeal of
saidcase(Aragonv.CourtofAppeals, 270 SCRA 603). The case at bar is a petition [for] certiorari and not an
appeal.

Butevenonthemeritstheargumentmustfalter.ItemNo.1ofCSCResolutionNo.932387dated29June1993,
provides:

Decisions in administrative cases involving officials and employees of the civil service appealable to the
CommissionpursuanttoSection47ofBookVoftheCode(i.e.,AdministrativeCodeof1987)includingpersonnel
actionssuchascontestedappointmentsshallnowbeappealeddirectlytotheCommissionandnottotheMSPB.

InRubeneciav.CivilServiceCommission,244SCRA640,651,itwascategoricallyheld:

. . . The functions of the MSPB relating to the determination of administrative disciplinary cases were, in other
words,reallocatedtotheCommissionitself.

Be that as it may, "(i)t is hornbook doctrine that in order `(t)o ascertain whether a court (in this case,
administrativeagency)hasjurisdictionornot,theprovisionsofthelawshouldbeinquiredinto.Furthermore,`the
jurisdiction of the court must appear clearly from the statute law or it will not be held to exist."(Azarcon v.
Sandiganbayan,268SCRA747,757)Fromtheprovisionoflawabovecited,theCivilServiceCommissionclearly
hasjurisdictionovertheAdministrativeCaseagainstpetitioner.

Anentthethirdassignmentoferror,welikewisedonotfindmeritinpetitionerspropositionthatheshouldnotbe
liable, as in the first place, he was not qualified to perform the functions of appraiser/investigator because he
lackedthenecessarytrainingandexpertise,andtherefore,shouldnothavebeenfounddishonestbytheBoardof
DirectorsofIslamicBank[AIIBP]andtheCSC.Petitionerhimselfadmitsthatthepositionofappraiser/inspectoris
"oneofthemostserious[and]sensitivejobinthebankingoperations."Heshouldhavebeenawarethataccepting
suchadesignation,heisobligedtoperformthetaskathandbytheexerciseofmorethanordinaryprudence.As
appraiser/investigator,heisexpected,amongothers,tochecktheauthenticityofthedocumentspresentedbythe
borrowerbycomparingthemwiththeoriginalsonfilewiththepropergovernmentoffice.Heshouldhavemadeit
surethatthetechnicaldescriptionsinthelocationplanonfilewiththeBureauofLandsofMarikina,jibewiththat
indicatedintheTCTofthecollateralofferedbyCAMEC,andthatthemortgageinfavoroftheIslamicBankwas
dulyannotatedatthebackofthecopyoftheTCTkeptbytheRegisterofDeedsofMarikina.This,petitionerfailed
todo,forwhichhemustbeheldliable.Thathedidnotprofitfromhisfalsereportisofnomoment.Neitherthe
factthatitwasnotdeliberateorwillful,detractsfromthenatureoftheactasdishonest.Whatisapparentishe
statedsomethingtobeafact,whenhereallywasnotsurethatitwasso.

Wherefore, above premises considered, the instant Petition is DISMISSED, and the assailed Resolutions of the
CivilServiceCommissionareherebyAFFIRMED.

On 24 March 1999, Sawadjaans counsel notified the court a quo of his change of address,11 but apparently
neglected to notify his client of this fact. Thus, on 23 July 1999, Sawadjaan, by himself, filed a Motion for New
Trial12intheCourtofAppealsbasedonthefollowinggrounds:fraud,accident,mistakeorexcusablenegligence
andnewlydiscoveredevidence.Heclaimedthathehadrecentlydiscoveredthatatthetimehisemploymentwas
terminated,theAIIBPhadnotyetadopteditscorporatebylaws.HeattachedaCertification13 by the Securities
andExchangeCommission(SEC)thatitwasonlyon27May1992thattheAIIBPsubmitteditsdraftbylawstothe
SEC, and that its registration was being held in abeyance pending certain corrections being made thereon.
SawadjaanarguedthatsincetheAIIBPfailedtofileitsbylawswithin60daysfromthepassageofRep.ActNo.
6848,asrequiredbySec.51ofthesaidlaw,thebankanditsstockholdershad"alreadyforfeiteditsfranchiseor
charter,includingitslicensetoexistandoperateasacorporation,"14andthusnolongerhave"thelegalstanding
andpersonalitytoinitiateanadministrativecase."

Sawadjaans counsel subsequently adopted his motion, but requested that it be treated as a motion for
reconsideration.15ThismotionwasdeniedbythecourtaquoinitsResolutionof15December1999.16

Still disheartened, Sawadjaan filed the present petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
challengingtheaboveDecisionandResolutionoftheCourtofAppealsonthegroundthatthecourtaquoerred:
i)inignoringthefactsandevidencesthattheallegedIslamicBankhasnovalidbylawsii)inignoringthefacts
andevidencesthattheIslamicBanklostitsjuridicalpersonalityasacorporationon16April1990iii)inignoring
thefactsandevidencesthattheallegedIslamicBankanditsallegedBoardofDirectorshavenojurisdictiontoact
in the manner they did in the absence of a valid bylaws iv) in not correcting the acts of the Civil Service
Commission who erroneously rendered the assailed Resolutions No. 944483 and No. 952754 as a result of
fraud,falsificationand/ormisrepresentationscommittedbyFaroukA.Carpizoandhisgroup,includingRobertoF.
deOcampov)inaffirminganunconscionablyharshand/orexcessivepenaltyandvi)infailingtoconsidernewly
discoveredevidenceandreverseitsdecisionaccordingly.

Subsequently, petitioner Sawadjaan filed an "ExparteUrgent Motion for Additional Extension of Time to File a
Reply (to the Comments of Respondent AlAmanah Investment Bank of the Philippines),17 Reply (to
RespondentsConsolidatedComment,)18andReply(totheAllegedCommentsofRespondentAlAmanahIslamic
Bank of the Philippines)."19 On 13 October 2000, he informed this Court that he had terminated his lawyers
services, and, by himself, prepared and filed the following: 1) Motion for New Trial20 2) Motion to Declare
RespondentsinDefaultand/orHavingWaivedtheirRightstoInterposeObjectiontoPetitionersMotionforNew
Trial21 3) ExParte Urgent Motions to Punish Attorneys Amado D. Valdez, Elpidio J. Vega, Alda G. Reyes,
DominadorR.Isidoro,Jr.,andOdilonA.DiazforBeinginContemptofCourt&toInhibitthemfromAppearingin
thisCaseUntiltheyCanPresentValidEvidenceofLegalAuthority224)Opposition/Reply(toRespondentAIIBPs
AllegedComment)235)ExParteUrgent Motion to Punish Atty. Reynaldo A. Pineda for Contempt of Court and
the Issuance of a Commitment Order/Warrant for His Arrest24 6) Reply/Opposition (To the Formal Notice of
Withdrawal of Undersigned Counsel as Legal Counsel for the Respondent Islamic Bank with Opposition to
Petitioners Motion to Punish Undersigned Counsel for Contempt of Court for the Issuance of a Warrant of
Arrest)25 7) Memorandum for Petitioner26 8) Opposition to SolGens Motion for Clarification with Motion for
Default and/or Waiver of Respondents to File their Memorandum27 9) Motion for Contempt of Court and
Inhibition/Disqualification with Opposition to OGCCs Motion for Extension of Time to File Memorandum28 10)
MotionforEnforcement(InDefenseoftheRuleofLaw)2911)MotionandOpposition(MotiontoPunishOGCCs
AttorneysAmadoD.Valdez,EfrenB.Gonzales,AldaG.Reyes,OdilonA.DiazandDominadorR.Isidoro,Jr.,for
ContemptofCourtandtheIssuanceofaWarrantfortheirArrestandOppositiontotheirAlleged"Manifestation
and Motion" Dated February 5, 2002)30 12) Motion for Reconsideration of Item (a) of Resolution dated 5
February2002withSupplementalMotionforContemptofCourt3113)MotionforReconsiderationofPortionof
ResolutionDated12March20023214)ExParteUrgentMotionforExtensionofTimetoFileReplyMemorandum
(To:CSCandAIIBPsMemorandum)3315)ReplyMemorandum(To:CSCsMemorandum)WithExParteUrgent
MotionforAdditionalExtensionoftimetoFileReplyMemorandum(To:AIIBPsMemorandum)34and16)Reply
Memorandum(To:OGCCsMemorandumforRespondentAIIBP).35

Petitionerseffortsareunavailing,andwedenyhispetitionforitsproceduralandsubstantiveflaws.

Thegeneralruleisthattheremedytoobtainreversalormodificationofthejudgmentonthemeritsisappeal.This
istrueeveniftheerror,oroneoftheerrors,ascribedtothecourtrenderingthejudgmentisitslackofjurisdiction
overthesubjectmatter,ortheexerciseofpowerinexcessthereof,orgraveabuseofdiscretioninthefindingsof
factoroflawsetoutinthedecision.36

TherecordsshowthatpetitionerscounselreceivedtheResolutionoftheCourtofAppealsdenyinghismotionfor
reconsiderationon27December1999.ThefifteendayreglamentaryperiodtoappealunderRule45oftheRules
ofCourtthereforelapsedon11January2000.On23February2000,overamonthafterreceiptoftheresolution
denyinghismotionforreconsideration,thepetitionerfiledhispetitionforcertiorariunderRule65.
Itissettledthataspecialcivilactionforcertiorariwillnotlieasasubstituteforthelostremedyofappeal,37and
though there are instances38 where the extraordinary remedy of certiorari may be resorted to despite the
availabilityofanappeal,39wefindnospecialreasonsformakingoutanexceptioninthiscase.

Evenifweweretooverlookthisfactinthebroaderinterestsofjusticeandtreatthisasaspecialcivilactionfor
certiorariunderRule65,40thepetitionwouldneverthelessbedismissedforfailureofthepetitionertoshowgrave
abuse of discretion. Petitioners recurrent argument, tenuous at its very best, is premised on the fact that since
respondentAIIBPfailedtofileitsbylawswithinthedesignated60daysfromtheeffectivityofRep.ActNo.6848,
allproceedingsinitiatedbyAIIBPandallactionsresultingtherefromareapatentnullity.Or,inhiswords,theAIIBP
anditsofficersandBoardofDirectors,

. . . [H]ave no legal authority nor jurisdiction to manage much less operate the Islamic Bank, file administrative
charges and investigate petitioner in the manner they did and allegedly passed Board Resolution No. 2309 on
December13,1993whichisnullandvoidforlackofan(sic)authorizedandvalidbylaws.TheCIVILSERVICE
COMMISSION was therefore affirming, erroneously, a null and void "Resolution No. 2309 dated December 13,
1993oftheBoardofDirectorsofAlAmanahIslamicInvestmentBankofthePhilippines"inCSCResolutionNo.
944483datedAugust11,1994.AmotionforreconsiderationthereofwasdeniedbytheCSCinitsResolutionNo.
952754datedApril11,1995.Bothacts/resolutionsoftheCSCareerroneous,resultingfromfraud,falsifications
and misrepresentations of the alleged Chairman and CEO Roberto F. de Ocampo and the alleged Director
FaroukA.CarpizoandhisgroupattheallegedIslamicBank.41

Nowhereinpetitionersvoluminouspleadingsisthereashowingthatthecourtaquocommittedgraveabuseof
discretionamountingtolackorexcessofjurisdictionreversiblebyapetitionforcertiorari.Petitioneralreadyraised
the question of AIIBPs corporate existence and lack of jurisdiction in his Motion for New Trial/Motion for
Reconsideration of 27 May 1997 and was denied by the Court of Appeals. Despite the volume of pleadings he
hassubmittedthusfar,hehasaddednothingsubstantialtohisarguments.

TheAIIBPwascreatedbyRep.ActNo.6848.Ithasamainofficewhereitconductsbusiness,hasshareholders,
corporateofficers,aboardofdirectors,assets,andpersonnel.Itis,infact,hererepresentedbytheOfficeofthe
Government Corporate Counsel, "the principal law office of governmentowned corporations, one of which is
respondentbank."42Attheveryleast,byitsfailuretosubmititsbylawsontime,theAIIBPmaybeconsidereda
de facto corporation43 whose right to exercise corporate powers may not be inquired into collaterally in any
privatesuittowhichsuchcorporationsmaybeaparty.44

Moreover,acorporationwhichhasfailedtofileitsbylawswithintheprescribedperioddoesnotipsofactoloseits
powers as such. The SEC Rules on Suspension/Revocation of the Certificate of Registration of Corporations,45
detailstheproceduresandremediesthatmaybeavailedofbeforeanorderofrevocationcanbeissued.Thereis
noshowingthatsuchaprocedurehasbeeninitiatedinthiscase.

In any case, petitioners argument is irrelevant because this case is not a corporate controversy, but a labor
disputeanditisanemployersbasicrighttofreelyselectordischargeitsemployees,ifonlyasameasureofself
protection against acts inimical to its interest.46 Regardless of whether AIIBP is a corporation, a partnership, a
soleproprietorship,orasarisaristore,itisanundisputedfactthatAIIBPisthepetitionersemployer.AIIBPchose
to retain his services during its reorganization, controlled the means and methods by which his work was to be
performed,paidhiswages,and,eventually,terminatedhisservices.47

Andthoughhehashadampleopportunitytodoso,thepetitionerhasnotallegedthatheisanythingotherthan
anemployeeofAIIBP.Hehasneitherclaimed,norshown,thatheisastockholderoranofficerofthecorporation.
Having accepted employment from AIIBP, and rendered his services to the said bank, received his salary, and
acceptedthepromotiongivenhim,itisnowtoolateinthedayforpetitionertoquestionitsexistenceanditspower
to terminate his services. One who assumes an obligation to an ostensible corporation as such, cannot resist
performancethereofonthegroundthattherewasinfactnocorporation.48 1 a v v p h i1

Even if we were to consider the facts behind petitioner Sawadjaans dismissal from service, we would be hard
pressedtofinderrorinthedecisionoftheAIIBP.

Asappraiser/investigator,thepetitionerwasexpectedtoconductanocularinspectionofthepropertiesofferedby
CAMEC as collaterals and check the copies of the certificates of title against those on file with the Registry of
Deeds. Not only did he fail to conduct these routine checks, but he also deliberately misrepresented in his
appraisalreportthatafterreviewingthedocumentsandconductingasiteinspection,hefoundtheCAMECloan
application to be in order. Despite the number of pleadings he has filed, he has failed to offer an alternative
explanationforhisactions.

Whenhewasinformedofthechargesagainsthimanddirectedtoappearandpresenthissideonthematter,the
petitioner sent instead a memorandum questioning the fairness and impartiality of the members of the
investigating committee and refusing to recognize their jurisdiction over him. Nevertheless, the investigating
committeerescheduledthehearingtogivethepetitioneranotherchance,buthestillrefusedtoappearbeforeit.

Thereafter, witnesses were presented, and a decision was rendered finding him guilty of dishonesty and
dismissing him from service. He sought a reconsideration of this decision and the same committee whose
impartiality he questioned reduced their recommended penalty to suspension for six months and one day. The
boardofdirectors,however,optedtodismisshimfromservice.

On appeal to the CSC, the Commission found that Sawadjaans failure to perform his official duties greatly
prejudicedtheAIIBP,forwhichheshouldbeheldaccountable.Itheldthat:

. . . (I)t is crystal clear that respondent SAPPARI SAWADJAAN was remiss in the performance of his duties as
appraiser/inspector. Had respondent performed his duties as appraiser/inspector, he could have easily noticed
that the property located at Balintawak, Caloocan City covered by TCT No. C52576 and which is one of the
propertiesofferedascollateralbyCAMECisencumberedtoDivinaPablico.Hadrespondentreflectedsuchfactin
his appraisal/inspection report on said property the ISLAMIC BANK would not have approved CAMECs loan of
P500,000.00in1987andCAMECsP5Millionloanin1988,respondentknowingfullywelltheBankspolicyofnot
acceptingencumberedpropertiesascollateral.

RespondentSAWADJAANsreprehensibleactisfurtheraggravatedwhenhefailedtocheckandverifyfromthe
RegistryofDeedsofMarikinatheauthenticityofthepropertylocatedatMayamot,Antipolo,RizalcoveredbyTCT
No.N130671andwhichisoneofthepropertiesofferedascollateralbyCAMECforitsP5Millionloanin1988.If
heonlyvisitedandverifiedwiththeRegisterofDeedsofMarikinatheauthenticityofTCTNo.N130671hecould
haveeasilydiscoveredthatTCTNo.N130671isfakeandthepropertydescribedthereinnonexistent.

...

This notwithstanding, respondent cannot escape liability. As adverted to earlier, his failure to perform his official
dutiesresultedtotheprejudiceandsubstantialdamagetotheISLAMICBANKforwhichheshouldbeheldliable
fortheadministrativeoffenseofCONDUCTPREJUDICIALTOTHEBESTINTERESTOFTHESERVICE.49

Fromtheforegoing,wefindthattheCSCandthecourtaquocommittednograveabuseofdiscretionwhenthey
sustained Sawadjaans dismissal from service. Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical
exerciseofjudgmentasequivalenttolackofjurisdiction,or,inotherwords,wherethepowerisexercisedinan
arbitraryordespoticmannerbyreasonofpassionorpersonalhostility,anditmustbesopatentandgrossasto
amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in
contemplationoflaw.50Therecordsshowthattherespondentsdidnoneofthesetheyactedinaccordancewith
thelaw.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals of 30 March 1999 affirming
Resolutions No. 944483 and No. 952754 of the Civil Service Commission, and its Resolution of 15 December
1999areherebyaffirmed.Costsagainstthepetitioner.

SOORDERED.

Davide,Jr.,C.J.,Panganiban,Quisumbing,YnaresSantiago,SandovalGutierrez,Carpio,AustriaMartinez,
Corona,CarpioMorales,Callejo,Sr.,Azcuna,Tinga,andGarcia,JJ.,concur.
Puno,J.,onofficialleave.

Footnotes
1 Docketed as CAG.R. SP No. 37891 Penned by Associate Justice Romeo A. Brawner, with Associate
JusticesAngelinaSandovalGutierrezandMartinS.Villarama,Jr.,concurring.
2Rollo,p.37.

3PetitionersServiceRecord,Rollo,p.61.

4Rollo,p.64.

5DecisionoftheAIIBPInvestigatingCommitteedated3December1993,CARollo,p.68.

6PetitionersServiceRecord,Rollo,p.61.
7Sec.48,RepublicActNo.6848.

8Sec.49,RepublicActNo.6848.

9DecisionoftheAIIBPInvestigatingCommitteedated3December1993,CARollo,p.48.

10Rollo,pp.3036.

11CARollo,p.171.

12CARollo,pp.175193.

13Dated19October1993,CARollo,pp.196.

14CARollo,p.194.

15CARollo,p.200.

16CARollo,p.205.

17Dated15June2000,Rollo,pp.140143.

18Dated1June2000,Rollo,pp.144166.

19Dated1July2000,Rollo,pp.168197.

20Rollo,pp.203238.

21Dated9March20001,Rollo,pp.260262.

22Dated21October2001,Rollopp.287293.

23Dated27October2001,Rollo,pp.294313.

24Dated18October2001,Rollo,pp.314318.

25Dated4December2001,Rollo,pp.325339.

26Dated7January2002,Rollo,pp.349381.

27Dated20January2002,Rollo,pp.382388.

28Dated23January2002,Rollo,pp.389400.

29Dated05February2002,.Rollo,pp.405411.

30Dated24January2002,Rollo,pp.412418.

31Dated08April2002,Rollo,pp.419429.

32Dated12May2002,Rollo,pp.430434.

33Dated08November2002,Rollo,pp.486489.

34Dated08December2002,Rollo,pp.490A490A6.

35Dated08January2003,Rollo,pp.491524.

36HeirsofLourdesPotencianoPadillav.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.147205,10March2004,425SCRA
236,citingMMDAv.JANCOMEnvironmentalCorp.,G.R.No.147465,30January2002,375SCRA320.
37Paav.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No,126560,4December1997,282SCRA448,citingVda.DeEspinav.
Abaya,G.R.No.45142,26April1991,196SCRA312,Syv.Romero,G.R.No.83580,23September1992,
214 SCRA 187, Hipolito v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 10847879, 21 February 1994, 230 SCRA 191,
 Fajardo v. Bautista, G.R. Nos. 10219397, 10 May 1994, 232 SCRA 291, De la Paz v. Panis, G.R. No.
57023,22June1995,245SCRA242.

38 When public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictates, or when the broader interests of
justicesorequire,orwhenthewritsissuedarenull,orwhenthequestionedorderamounttoanoppressive
exerciseofjudicialauthority.
39Supra, Note No. 36, citing Ruiz, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 101566, 26 March 1993, 220 SCRA
490.

40Ligonv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.127683,7August1998,294SCRA73.

41PetitionforCertiorari,Rollo,pp.2223.

42Resolutiondated6August2002,Rollo,pp.435436.

43Hallv.Piccio,No.L2598,29June1950,86Phil603.

44Sec.20,BatasPambansaBlg.68,otherwiseknownasthe"CorporationCodeofthePhilippines."

45XXVIIISECQuarterlyBulletin90(No.3,June1994).

46 Filipro, Incorporated v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 70546, 16 October 1986, 145
SCRA123.
47BrotherhoodLaborUnityMovementofthePhilippinesv.Zamora,G.R.No.L48645,07January1987,
147SCRA49.
48Par.2,Sec.21,BatasPambansaBlg.68,TheCorporationCodeofthePhilippines.

49CARollo,pp.5960.

50Bernaldezv. Francia, G.R. No. 143929, 28 February 2003, 398 SCRA 489 Peoplev. Ebias, G.R. No.
127130, 12 October 2000, 342 SCRA 675 Esguerrav. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119310, 03 February
1997,267SCRA380,399400.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation