View full case

SAPPARI K. SAWADJAAN v. CA

FACTS:

Sappari K. Sawadjaan, an employee of the Philippine Amanah Bank (PAB), inspected properties offered as collateral by Compressed Air Machineries and Equipment Corporation (CAMEC) for a loan in 1988. However, it was later discovered that one of the properties offered as collateral was spurious and the other had an existing mortgage. Sawadjaan was charged with conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The Investigating Committee found him liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, but not for dishonesty. The Board of Directors of the Al-Amanah Islamic Investment Bank of the Philippines (AIIBP) initially imposed the penalty of dismissal, which was later reduced to a six-month suspension. Sawadjaan appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), but his appeal was dismissed. He then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the CSC's decision. Sawadjaan subsequently filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.

In the motion for reconsideration filed before the Supreme Court, Sawadjaan argued that the AIIBP conducted an administrative investigation without validly promulgated rules of procedure and that the CSC prematurely assumed jurisdiction over the case instead of the Merit System Protection Board. Both the AIIBP and the CSC found Sawadjaan guilty of reporting false information and imposed the penalty of dismissal. The Supreme Court referred the case to the Court of Appeals, which rejected Sawadjaan's arguments. The Court of Appeals ruled that the AIIBP was not required to promulgate rules of procedure and that the CSC had jurisdiction over the case. Additionally, the Court of Appeals found no merit in Sawadjaan's argument that he was not qualified for the position he held.

Sawadjaan was employed as an appraiser/inspector by the Islamic Bank. However, the Board of Directors of the Islamic Bank and the CSC found him to be dishonest. Sawadjaan acknowledged that the position of appraiser/inspector was serious and sensitive, involving tasks such as verifying the authenticity of documents and ensuring the accuracy of technical descriptions in location plans and transfer certificates of title. However, Sawadjaan failed to perform these tasks.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Civil Service Commission has jurisdiction over the administrative case against the petitioner.

  2. Whether the petitioner should be held liable for dishonesty despite lacking the necessary training and expertise for the position.

  3. Whether the petitioner's lack of profit or deliberate intent negates his liability for dishonesty.

  4. Whether the remedy of certiorari is available as a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal.

  5. Whether the petitioner was able to show grave abuse of discretion on the part of the court a quo.

RULING:

  1. The Civil Service Commission has jurisdiction over the administrative case against the petitioner.

  2. The petitioner should be held liable for dishonesty despite lacking the necessary training and expertise for the position.

  3. The lack of profit or deliberate intent does not negate the petitioner's liability for dishonesty.

  4. The remedy of certiorari is generally not available as a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal. However, there are instances where the extraordinary remedy of certiorari may be resorted to despite the availability of an appeal. In this case, the petitioner failed to show any special reasons that would justify making an exception to the general rule. Therefore, the petition for certiorari is dismissed for procedural flaws.

  5. The petitioner also failed to show grave abuse of discretion on the part of the court a quo. His argument regarding the lack of AIIBP's corporate existence and jurisdiction was already raised and denied in previous motions. The AIIBP is considered a de facto corporation whose right to exercise corporate powers may not be inquired into collaterally in any private suit. Additionally, the petitioner's argument is irrelevant because this case is a labor dispute, and it is an employer's right to freely select or discharge its employees.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The Civil Service Commission has jurisdiction over administrative cases against government employees.

  • Government employees are expected to exercise more than ordinary prudence in performing their tasks and can be held liable for acts of dishonesty.

  • Lack of profit or deliberate intent does not excuse a government employee from liability for dishonesty.

  • The remedy of certiorari is generally not available as a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal.

  • The extraordinary remedy of certiorari may be resorted to despite the availability of an appeal in special circumstances.

  • A de facto corporation's right to exercise corporate powers may not be inquired into collaterally in any private suit.

  • An employer has the right to freely select or discharge its employees.

  • One who assumes an obligation to an ostensible corporation cannot resist performance on the ground that there was no corporation.

  • Grave abuse of discretion requires an arbitrary or despotic exercise of judgment, manifesting personal hostility or evasion of duty.