G.R. No. 141735 - Sappari K. Sawadjaan vs. Court of Appeals

Sappari K. Sawadjaan was among the first employees of the Philippine Amanah Bank (PAB) created in 1973, rising from security guard to loans analyst by 1989.
In February 1988, as appraiser/investigator, he inspected two parcels offered by Compressed Air Machineries and Equipment Corporation (CAMEC) as collateral (TCT Nos. N-130671 and C-52576), and on his report PAB granted a ₱5,000,000 loan.

In January 1990, Republic Act No. 6848 created the Al-Amanah Islamic Investment Bank of the Philippines (AIIBP), absorbing PAB assets, liabilities, and personnel—including Sawadjaan.
After CAMEC defaulted, AIIBP discovered TCT N-130671 was spurious and TCT C-52576 was encumbered by a prior mortgage, causing a ₱6,000,000 loss. On 8 June 1993, AIIBP’s Board formed an Investigating Committee.
Sawadjaan was charged with dishonesty/conduct prejudicial, suspended, and repeatedly defaulted on hearings. On 8 December 1993, the Committee found him liable for conduct prejudicial and recommended six months and one day suspension.
On 13 December 1993, the AIIBP Board imposed dismissal; on 20 February 1994 it reduced the penalty to suspension for six months and one day.
Sawadjaan appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC); on 11 August 1994 CSC Resolution 94-4483 affirmed dismissal, and on 11 April 1995 Resolution 95-2754 denied reconsideration.
On 16 June 1995, he filed a Rule 65 certiorari petition in the Supreme Court; the case was referred to the Court of Appeals (CA), which on 30 March 1999 affirmed the CSC resolutions.
Sawadjaan filed motions for new trial and reconsideration before the CA, alleging AIIBP lacked by-laws and corporate personality; on 15 December 1999 CA denied relief. He then filed another Rule 65 petition before the Supreme Court, raising jurisdictional, procedural, and substantive errors.

Whether AIIBP, in the absence of formally promulgated rules of procedure or corporate by-laws, had jurisdiction to initiate and conduct the administrative investigation.
Whether the CSC had jurisdiction to hear the appeal instead of the Merit System Protection Board (MSPB).
Whether a Rule 65 certiorari petition was a proper and timely remedy, given the availability of appeal under Rule 45.

Whether Sawadjaan’s failure to verify titles and his default on hearings amounted to the administrative offenses of dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
Whether AIIBP’s failure to file its by-laws within 60 days voided its corporate existence and authority to discipline employees.
Whether the penalty of dismissal (later reduced then reinstated) was unconscionably harsh or excessive.