1. The petitioner, Sapari Sawadjaan, was an employee of the Al-Amanah Islamic Investment Bank of the Philippines (AIIBP) who was found guilty of misconduct related to his inspection of property used as collateral for a loan.
2. The AIIBP Board of Directors dismissed the petitioner from service for dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the service. The Civil Service Commission affirmed this decision.
3. The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari challenging these decisions on the grounds that the AIIBP failed to promulgate proper procedures and that the CSC prematurely assumed jurisdiction. The Supreme Court did not find merit in the petition.
1. The petitioner, Sapari Sawadjaan, was an employee of the Al-Amanah Islamic Investment Bank of the Philippines (AIIBP) who was found guilty of misconduct related to his inspection of property used as collateral for a loan.
2. The AIIBP Board of Directors dismissed the petitioner from service for dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the service. The Civil Service Commission affirmed this decision.
3. The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari challenging these decisions on the grounds that the AIIBP failed to promulgate proper procedures and that the CSC prematurely assumed jurisdiction. The Supreme Court did not find merit in the petition.
1. The petitioner, Sapari Sawadjaan, was an employee of the Al-Amanah Islamic Investment Bank of the Philippines (AIIBP) who was found guilty of misconduct related to his inspection of property used as collateral for a loan.
2. The AIIBP Board of Directors dismissed the petitioner from service for dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the service. The Civil Service Commission affirmed this decision.
3. The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari challenging these decisions on the grounds that the AIIBP failed to promulgate proper procedures and that the CSC prematurely assumed jurisdiction. The Supreme Court did not find merit in the petition.
1. The petitioner, Sapari Sawadjaan, was an employee of the Al-Amanah Islamic Investment Bank of the Philippines (AIIBP) who was found guilty of misconduct related to his inspection of property used as collateral for a loan.
2. The AIIBP Board of Directors dismissed the petitioner from service for dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the service. The Civil Service Commission affirmed this decision.
3. The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari challenging these decisions on the grounds that the AIIBP failed to promulgate proper procedures and that the CSC prematurely assumed jurisdiction. The Supreme Court did not find merit in the petition.
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as doc, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 8
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.