Philippine National Bank v. Tejano, Jr.

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 189712. August 2, 2016.]

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, petitioner, vs. CAYETANO A. TEJANO, JR., respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated AUGUST 2, 2016, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 189712 — PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner, v. CAYETANO A. TEJANO, JR., Respondent.

Petitioner Philippine National Bank (PNB) appeals the decision promulgated on May 29, 2009, 1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision of the Civil Service Commission (CSC), and ordered the reinstatement of respondent Cayetano A. Tejano, Jr., to wit:

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The assailed CSC Resolution No. 080606 dated April 10, 2008 and Resolution No. 081563 dated July 24, 2008 are hereby AFFIRMED subject to the qualification that the order for the reinstatement of respondent Cayetano A. Tejano, Jr. into the service sans back salaries shall be effected only if he has not reached his compulsory retirement age. Otherwise, he shall instead be entitled to the retirement benefits in accordance with law.

SO ORDERED.

Antecedents

Tejano, Jr. served simultaneously as the Vice President for PNB's Cebu Branch, and as the Chairman of the Branch Credit Committee at a time when PNB was still a government financial institution. 2

On February 24, 1994, PNB charged Tejano, Jr. and eight other bank officers and employees with grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service, gross violation of bank rules and regulations, and violation of Section 3 (a) and (e) of Republic Act No. 3019. The complaint alleged irregularities committed by Tejano, Jr. in granting loans to several corporate clients of PNB, namely: Pat International Trading Corporation (PITC); Pat Garments International Corporation (PGIC), Khun Tong International Trading Corporation (KITC), and V&G Better Homes Subdivision, Inc. PNB later presented a supplemental administrative charge for similar offenses against Tejano, Jr. for his irregular corporate transactions with Aqua Solar Trading Corporation, DACEBU Traders and Exporters and Mancao Mercantile Co., Inc. 3

After concluding its investigation, PNB's Hearing Committee found and declared Tejano, Jr. guilty of grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty. Consequently, on June 21, 1995, its Board of Directors issued Board Resolution No. 88 4 adopting the findings of the Hearing Committee, and imposing the penalty of forced resignation without benefits on Tejano, Jr.

Upon denial of his motion for reconsideration, 5 Tejano, Jr. appealed to the CSC.

In the meantime, PNB became a private corporate entity upon issuance on May 27, 1996 of the Certificate of Incorporation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 6

Initially, the CSC denied Tejano, Jr.'s appeal on April 14, 1998 for having been filed out of time. 7 On December 7, 1998, however, the CSC denied his motion for reconsideration for lack of jurisdiction in view of PNB's intervening privatization. 8

On appeal, the CA reversed the CSC, and remanded the case for further proceedings. 9

On April 10, 2008, after due hearing, the CSC found Tejano, Jr. guilty of simple neglect of duty only, and imposed suspension from the service for three months as penalty. It ordered his reinstatement without backwages. 10

Both parties sought reconsideration, but their motions were denied on July 24, 2008. 11

PNB appealed to the CA by petition for review. 12 Ultimately, the CA denied the petition for review through its assailed decision promulgated on May 29, 2009. 13

Following the denial of its motion for reconsideration on September 29, 2009, 14 PNB is now before the Court for final review. HEITAD

Issues

PNB submits in support of its appeal that:

I

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE CSC DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE SAID COMMISSION HAS NO JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND DECIDE THE APPEAL OF TEJANO.

II

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT BY THE CSC DESPITE THE FINDING OF GUILT. THE FINDING OF GUILT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT AS LAID DOWN IN SETTLED JURISPRUDENCE.

III

THE COURT OF APPEALS MISAPPRECIATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND ERRED IN ABSOLVING TEJANO FROM LIABILITY.

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT PNB FAILED TO ESTABLISH WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS THAT THERE WAS A LOAN CONTRACT OR POLICY PERTAINING TO V & G WHICH REQUIRED FULL PAYMENT OR CLEAR UP PRIOR TO A LOAN RE-GRANT.

IV

RESPONDENT TEJANO'S GROSS NEGLECT IN HIS DUTY RESULTS IN THE LOSS OF TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED UPON HIM BY THE BANK THEREBY WARRANTING HIS DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE. 15

Ruling of the Court

The petition for review on certiorari lacks merit.

PNB insists that its privatization on May 27, 1996 deprived the CSC of its jurisdiction to hear and determine Tejano's case. We have squarely addressed this issue in Philippine National Bank v. Tejano, Jr., 16 a case that involved the same parties, where we affirmed the CSC's jurisdiction to hear Tejano's case, thus:

While there is no denying that upon its privatization, the bank would consequently be subject to laws, rules and regulations applicable to private corporations — which is to say that disciplinary cases involving its employees would then be placed under the operation of the Labor Code of the Philippines — still, we cannot validate petitioners own interpretation of Section 6 of E.O. No. 80 that the same must be applied to respondent's pending appeal with the CSC and that, resultantly, the CSC must abdicate its appellate jurisdiction without having to resolve the case to finality.

It is binding rule, conformably with Article 4 of the Civil Code, that, generally, laws shall have only a prospective effect and must not be applied retroactively in such a way as to apply to pending disputes and cases. This is expressed in the familiar legal maxim lex prospicit, non respicit (the law looks forward and not backward.) The rationale against retroactivity is easy to perceive: the retroactive application of a law usually divests rights that have already become vested or impairs the obligations of contract and, hence, is unconstitutional. Although the rule admits of certain well-defined exceptions such as, for instance, where the law itself expressly provides for retroactivity, we find that not one of such exceptions that would otherwise lend credence to petitioner's argument obtains in this case. Hence, in other words, the fact that Section 6 of E.O. No. 80 states that PNB would be removed from the coverage of the CSC must be taken to govern acts committed by the banks employees after privatization.

Moreover, jurisdiction is conferred by no other source than law. Once jurisdiction is acquired, it continues until the case is finally terminated. The disciplinary jurisdiction of the CSC over government officials and employees within its coverage is well-defined in Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 807, otherwise known as The Civil Service Decree of the Philippines. Section 37 thereof materially provides that the CSC shall have jurisdiction over appeals in administrative disciplinary cases involving the imposition of the penalty of suspension for more than thirty days; or fine in an amount exceeding thirty days salary; demotion in rank or salary or transfer, removal or dismissal from office.

It bears to stress on this score that the CSC was able to acquire jurisdiction over the appeal of respondent merely upon its filing, followed by the submission of his memorandum on appeal. From that point, the appellate jurisdiction of the CSC at once attached, thereby vesting it with the authority to dispose of the case on the merits until it shall have been finally terminated. 17 (Emphasis supplied)

The foregoing ruling in Philippine National Bank v. Tejano, Jr. became final on December 15, 2009. 18 Hence, we refrain from addressing and resolving this issue of jurisdiction anew.

Regarding the imputations of error against the CA in affirming Tejano, Jr.'s liability for simple neglect of duty, we dismiss the same for being improper matters to be brought to the Court by petition for review on certiorari. The imputations involve questions of fact because PNB would thereby have us settle issues that are of a factual nature. It is settled that an appeal by petition for review on certiorari is limited to the review of errors of law committed by the CA or another lower court. 19 Consequently, the Court cannot go over the evidence presented by PNB in the proceedings below and re-analyze, re-assess and re-weigh them to ascertain if the CA correctly appreciated the evidence and the record. 20 ATICcS

Relevantly, we reiterate that the factual findings of the CSC when affirmed by the CA, are conclusive upon us, and are thus generally not reviewable. 21 This is because administrative agencies like the CSC possess the specialized knowledge and expertise in their respective fields. The Court may review and re-assess the evidence only when there is a clear showing by the petitioner that such findings of fact were either made with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, or were arrived at arbitrarily or in disregard of the evidence on record. 22

Although PNB submits that the CA misappreciated the facts, we do not agree. The CA, by its own appreciation of the evidence, expressly concurred with the CSC. We are satisfied that the findings of fact by both the CA and the CSC were supported by the evidence on record. Hence, we are now concluded by such factual findings of the CA, which satisfy the standard of substantial evidence observed in administrative proceedings. 23

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review on certiorari for lack of merit; AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on May 29, 2009 in CA-G.R. SP No. 105717; and DIRECTS the petitioner to pay the costs of suit." Brion, J., on leave. (10)

 

Very truly yours,

 

(SGD.) FELIPA B. ANAMAClerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 58-67, penned by Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe (now a Member of this Court), with Associate Justice Mario L. Guariña, III (retired) and Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal (retired) concurring.

2. Id. at 24.

3. Id. at 24-29.

4. Id. at 69-80.

5. Id. at 81-87.

6. Id. at 33.

7. Id. at 181-182.

8. Id. at 188-189.

9. Id. at 207-216.

10. Id. at 225-233; 247-252.

11. Id. at 242-246.

12. Id. at 253-282.

13. Supra note 1.

14. Rollo, p. 68.

15. Id. at 39-40.

16. G.R. No. 173695, October 16, 2009, 604 SCRA 147.

17. Id. at 158-160.

18. Rollo, p. 309.

19. Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

20. Bacsasar v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 180853, January 20, 2009, 576 SCRA 787, 794.

21. Donato, Jr. v. Civil Service Commission, Regional Office No. 1, G.R. No. 165788, February 7, 2007, 515 SCRA 48, 59.

22. Japson v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 189479, April 12, 2011, 648 SCRA 532, 542.

23. Civil Service Commission v. Ledesma, G.R. No. 154521, September 30, 2005, 471 SCRA 589, 606.