Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81794:186279&catid=1569&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 19:57:06+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 186279, April 02, 2013 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. ARTEMIO S. SAN JUAN, JR., Respondent.
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. ARTEMIO S. SAN JUAN, JR., Respondent.
For our consideration is the petition for review on certiorari,1 filed by petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), assailing the decision2 dated October 17, 2007 and the resolution3 dated February 5, 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 94757. The CA modified on appeal Resolution No. 060286,4 issued by the Civil Service Commission (CSC), finding Artemio S. San Juan, Jr. (respondent), then Acting LBP Manager - Binangonan Branch, guilty of gross neglect of duty. The CA, instead, found the respondent liable for simple neglect of duty.
In Resolution No. 04-394 dated October 26, 2004,30 the LBP Board of Directors adopted the OGCC’s findings and approved the respondent’s dismissal. The respondent moved for reconsideration, but his motion was denied for lack of merit;31 hence, his appeal to the CSC.
The CSC imposed on the respondent the penalty of dismissal, together with the accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, perpetual disqualification from re-employment in the government service and forfeiture of retirement benefits. The respondent appealed the CSC’s resolution to the CA under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
In its decision dated October 17, 2007,34 the CA partly granted the respondent’s appeal and affirmed with modification the assailed CSC resolution by finding the respondent guilty of simple, not gross, neglect of duty.
The CA found that, while the respondent was negligent in allowing Bonsalagan to open a checking account and to deposit the China Bank check with the branch without complying with the bank’s procedures, his negligence could not be considered as so gross that it would merit the respondent’s dismissal from the service; that the respondent did exercise some degree of diligence in the performance of his duties as Acting LBP Manager when he: (a) instructed Ramirez to confirm Lambo’s certification as to the legitimacy of the source and the sufficiency of the China Bank check’s funding, (b) required Bonsalagan to submit an additional ID on the next banking day, and (c) ordered the “tagging” of Bonsalagan’s account with the branch, which means that, despite the premature issuance of a check booklet to Bonsalagan, funds of the China Bank check could be withdrawn only when the said check is cleared and after the completion of the client’s identification requirements.
The LBP moved to reconsider the CA’s decision but the latter denied the motion in a resolution dated February 5, 2009;38 hence, the present petition for review on certiorari filed with this Court.
In his comment dated June 29, 2009,44 the respondent counter-argued that the LBP’s petition should be denied on the ground that the sole issue raised by the LBP, as to whether the acts committed by the respondent constitute gross neglect of duty, is a question of fact that cannot be raised in a petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Even if assuming that the issue raised by the LBP is a valid question of law, the respondent contends that the CA correctly ruled that he is only guilty of simple neglect of duty considering that he specifically instructed that Bonsalagan’s account with the branch be tagged.
We find LBP’s petition meritorious.
The LBP’s petition hinges on the question of whether the acts imputed on the respondent constitute gross neglect of duty so as to justify the respondent’s dismissal from the government service.
Our review of the records convinces us that the respondent’s actuations constitute gross, and not simple, neglect of duty.
A bank manager has the duty to ensure that bank rules are strictly complied with, not only to ensure efficient bank operation, but also to serve the bank’s best interest.50 His responsibility over the functions of the employees of the branch cannot simply be overlooked as their acts normally pass through his supervision and approval. He should serve as the last safeguard against any pretense employed to carry out an illicit claim over the bank’s money.
In the present case, the respondent miserably failed to discharge his functions as Acting LBP Manager.
First, the respondent allowed, even prodded, his employees to bypass bank procedures that were in place to secure the bank’s funds. Through the respondent’s assurances as to Bonsalagan’s identity, Ramirez blindly opened a current account despite the client’s submission of incomplete identification requirements. The respondent even approved and authenticated Bonsalagan’s specimen signature cards to facilitate the opening of Bonsalagan’s current account.
The respondent contends that since Bonsalagan was already a signatory of the Humanitarian Foundation Order of Service, Inc., which had an existing account with the LBP-Binangonan Branch, Bonsalagan did not need to present the additional identification requirements to open an account with the branch. We find the respondent’s leniency in this regard to be misplaced. Bonsalagan, in his personal capacity, and the Humanitarian Foundation Order of Service, Inc., as a corporate entity, are different personalities and their accounts with the branch should have been treated individually and separately.
The respondent further argues that the duties of opening and processing the bank’s accounts fell on the shoulders of Ramirez and Amparo and were not part of his specific duties and responsibilities as Acting LBP Manager; thus, he should not be made accountable. We cannot, however, accept this excuse. As Acting LBP Manager, the respondent had the primary duty to see to it that his employees faithfully observe bank procedures. Whether or not the opening and processing of accounts were part of his job description or not was of no moment because the respondent held a position that exercised control and supervision over his employees.
We consider the respondent’s act of tagging Bonsalagan’s account as insufficient safeguard to prevent unauthorized withdrawals of the check’s funds as it would not really have prevented Bonsalagan, who was already in possession of the check booklet, from issuing and circulating in the market checks that would subsequently be dishonored for being spurious and unfunded. Knowledge that Bonsalagan’s account was tagged by the respondent was only internal with the branch or, possibly within the LBP bank system, but not with respect to third persons who would get hold of the checks issued by Bonsalagan.
Third, the respondent failed to exert prompt efforts in confirming the genuineness and source of Bonsalagan’s P26-Billion check.
Due to the nature of his Bank Manager position, it was inevitable for the respondent to encounter and process, on a daily basis, checks of enormous amounts, ranging from thousands to millions of pesos. However, we find the enormity of the amount of Bonsalagan’s check, i.e., P26 Billion, to be exceptional and far from the usual bank transactions. This kind of unusual, even suspicious, transaction warranted a more guarded and prompt response from the respondent.
We recall that it was through Ramirez’s initiative, and not the respondent’s, that the unusually enormous check was immediately reported to the LBP Area Head Office. Strangely, the respondent, with apparent insensitivity to the circumstances of the situation, wanted to wait until the next working day to report the check. Such relaxed response cannot but be a confirmation of his disregard of and lack of concern for the bank’s interests, which he was duty-bound to protect.
We likewise discern from the respondent’s actuations that he was not only grossly negligent in the performance of his duties, but was also instrumental in perpetuating a fraud against the bank. The respondent cannot deny that he solicited Bonsalagan’s account, allegedly to improve the bank’s deposit portfolio.53 The day before Bonsalagan arrived at the LBP-Binangonan Branch, the respondent already advised Ramirez of Bonsalagan’s arrival and the presentation of the P26-Billion check.54 And on the day the client arrived at the bank, the respondent vouched for Bonsalagan’s identity and for the supposed confirmation by China Bank of the P26-Billion check.
For the reasons cited above, we find the respondent guilty of gross neglect of duty and order his dismissal from the service. The banking business is one impressed with public trust56 and a higher degree of diligence is imposed on banks compared to an ordinary business enterprise in the handling of deposited funds; the degree of responsibility, care and trustworthiness expected of their officials and employees is far greater than those imposed on ordinary officers and employees in other enterprises.57 All these considerations were apparently lost on the CA when it misappreciated the import and significance of the facts of this case. Even a layman with no in-depth training in law would have wondered why a bank manager, presented a P26-Billion check by a private individual, did not bother to take special care.
Under the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,58 gross neglect of duty is a grave offense punishable with the penalty of dismissal, even for first-time offenders.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court GRANTS the petition and SETS ASIDE the decision and the resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 94757. Accordingly, Resolution No. 060286 of the Civil Service Commission dated February 15, 2006, dismissing Artemio S. San Juan, Jr. from the service with all the accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, perpetual disqualification from re-employment in the government service and forfeiture of retirement benefits, is hereby REINSTATED and UPHELD.
Perlas-Bernabe, J., on official leave.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang, and concurred in by Associate Justices Marina L. Buzon and Mariflor P. Punzalan-Castillo; id. at 13-26.
25 Dated July 29, 2002 and docketed as Administrative Case No. 02-03, entitled “Land Bank of the Philippines v. Mr. Artemio S. San Juan, Jr.”; id. at 100-105.
26 Pursuant to Section 46, Chapter 7, Subtitle (A), Title I, Book V of Executive Order No. 292, in relation to Section 16, Rule II of CSC Resolution No. 991936; id. at 100.
27 Pursuant to Section 19, Rule II of CSC Resolution No. 991936; id. at 105.
29 In accordance with “Rule IV, Section 52 A (2), in connection with Section 54.c of x x x CSC Resolution No. 99-1936”; id. at 121.
31 Dated December 7, 2004; id. at 143.
36 Section 52 B(1), Rule IV.
37 Supra note 2, at 25.
39 Supra note 1, at 36-37.
45 Diokno v. Cacdac, G.R. No. 168475, July 4, 2007, 526 SCRA 440, 460.
47Office of the Court Administrator v. Garcia-Rañoco, A.M. No. P-03-1717, March 6, 2008, 547 SCRA 670, 673-674.
48Brucal v. Hon. Desierto, 501 Phil. 453, 465-466 (2005).
50Equitable PCI Bank v. Dompor, G.R. Nos. 163293 and 163297, December 8, 2010, 637 SCRA 698, 714.
51 Currently, under Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) Circular No. 681 or “The Revised Check Clearing and Settlement Processes,” all banks are mandated to return checks drawn against Uncollected Deposits (DAUD) and Insufficient Funds (DAIF) and checks with stop payment orders to the Philippine Clearing House Corporation by 7:30 a.m. the next day after their presentation for clearing.
54 As reported by the OGCC in its Report of Investigation dated October 21, 2004; id. at 110.
55 http://www.philstar.com/headlines/171515/nbi-question-land-bank-employees, last accessed on January 22, 2013; http://www.philstar.com/metro/184150/3-tax-scam-suspects-charged, last accessed on January 22, 2013; http://archive.malaya.com.ph/2009/August/aug18/news2.htm, last accessed on January 22, 2013.
56United Coconut Planters Bank v. Basco, 480 Phil. 803, 819 (2004).
58 Memorandum Circular No. 19, s. 1999, Rule IV, Section 52 A (2).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.