Case Digest (G.R. No. 186279)
Facts:
Land Bank of the Philippines v. Artemio S. San Juan, Jr., G.R. No. 186279, April 02, 2013, Supreme Court En Banc, Brion, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) sought review of the Court of Appeals' decision (CA-G.R. SP No. 94757, Oct. 17, 2007) and its denial of reconsideration (Feb. 5, 2009) that modified Civil Service Commission Resolution No. 060286 (Feb. 15, 2006) by finding respondent Artemio S. San Juan, Jr., then Acting Manager of LBP–Binangonan Branch, guilty only of simple neglect of duty instead of gross neglect.On June 14, 2002 a Mr. Esmayatin Bonsalagan presented to the LBP–Binangonan Branch a China Banking Corporation check for Twenty-Six Billion pesos (check No. GHO A0012480), drawn on CQ Ventures Corporation with Bonsalagan as payee. San Juan summoned his Cashier/Operations Supervisor (Acsa Ramirez) and a Teller/Designated New Accounts Clerk (Leila Amparo), suggested opening a current/checking account to accommodate the client, and vouched that China Bank had already confirmed the check. Despite Ramirez’s reservation about incomplete identification and bank procedure requiring clearance before withdrawals, San Juan approved opening the account, authenticated Bonsalagan’s specimen signature cards, and a checkbook was issued the same day.
The check was forwarded to LBP–Cainta for clearing that afternoon and Ramirez notified Cainta of a certification from China Bank. Cainta’s Branch Manager asked whether the Area Head Office had been informed; San Juan instructed Ramirez to report only the next working day, but Ramirez nonetheless contacted the Area Head Office, which caused the check to be withheld and the account closed. LBP’s subsequent inquiry established that the P26-Billion check was spurious and unfunded and that the check number belonged to another person.
LBP filed a Formal Charge (Administrative Case No. 02-03, July 29, 2002) through the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) accusing San Juan of gross neglect of duty (under EO No. 292, Sec. 46 and CSC Resolution No. 99-1936). He was preventively suspended. The OGCC’s Report of Investigation (Oct. 21, 2004) recommended dismissal; the LBP Board adopted that recommendation (Resolution No. 04-394, Oct. 26, 2004) and denied reconsideration (Dec. 7, 2004). The Civil Service Commission, in Resolution No. 060286 (Feb. 15, 2006), affirmed dismissal with accessory penalties (cancellation of eligibility, perpetual disqualification from re-employment, forfeiture of retirement benefits)....(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May the Supreme Court review the Court of Appeals' factual finding that respondent was guilty only of simple neglect of duty?
- Do the acts and omissions imputed to respondent constitute gross neglect of duty warranting dismissal and the accessory penalties imposed by the Civil...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)