Feliciano vs. Commission on Audit November 1, 2011 by PinayLaw Leave a Comment GR 1 !

02, 1 "anuary 200 Facts# A Special Audit Team from Commission on Audit (COA) Regional Office No. VIII audited t e accounts of t e !eyte "etropolitan #ater $istrict (!"#$). Subse%uently& !"#$ recei'ed a letter from COA dated () *uly ())) re%uesting payment of auditing fees. As +eneral "anager of !"#$& ,ngr. Ranulfo C. -eliciano sent a reply dated (. October ())) informing COA/s Regional $irector t at t e 0ater district could not pay t e auditing fees. -eliciano cited as basis for is action Sections 1 and .2 of 3$ ()4& as 0ell as Section (4 of RA 1564. T e Regional $irector referred -eliciano/s reply to t e COA C airman on (4 October ())). On () October ()))& -eliciano 0rote COA t roug t e Regional $irector as7ing for refund of all auditing fees !"#$ pre'iously paid to COA. On (1 "arc .222& -eliciano recei'ed COA C airman Celso $. +angan/s Resolution dated 8 *anuary .222 denying -eliciano/s re%uest for COA to cease all audit ser'ices& and to stop c arging auditing fees& to !"#$. T e COA also denied -eliciano/s re%uest for COA to refund all auditing fees pre'iously paid by !"#$. -eliciano filed a motion for reconsideration on 8( "arc .222& 0 ic COA denied on 82 *anuary .22(. On (8 "arc .22(& -elicaino filed t e petition for certiorari. $ssue# Whether a Local Water District (LWD) is a government-owned or controlled corporation. %eld# T e Constitution recogni9es t0o classes of corporations. T e first refers to pri'ate corporations created under a general la0. T e second refers to go'ernment:o0ned or controlled corporations created by special c arters. T e Constitution emp atically pro ibits t e creation of pri'ate corporations e;cept by a general la0 applicable to all citi9ens. T e purpose of t is constitutional pro'ision is to ban pri'ate corporations created by special c arters& 0 ic istorically ga'e certain indi'iduals& families or groups special pri'ileges denied to ot er citi9ens. In s ort& Congress cannot enact a la0 creating a pri'ate corporation 0it a special c arter. Suc legislation 0ould be unconstitutional. 3ri'ate corporations may e;ist only under a general la0. If t e corporation is pri'ate& it must necessarily e;ist under a general la0. Stated differently& only corporations created under a general la0 can %ualify as pri'ate corporations. <nder e;isting la0s& t at general la0 is t e Corporation Code& e;cept t at t e Cooperati'e Code go'erns t e incorporation of cooperati'es. T e Constitution aut ori9es Congress to create go'ernment:o0ned or controlled corporations t roug special c arters. Since pri'ate corporations cannot a'e special c arters& it follo0s t at Congress can create corporations 0it special c arters only if suc corporations are go'ernment:o0ned or controlled. Ob'iously& !#$s are not pri'ate corporations because t ey are not created under t e Corporation Code. !#$s are not registered 0it t e Securities and ,;c ange Commission. Section (= of t e Corporation Code states t at >?A@ll corporations organi9ed under t is code s all file 0it t e Securities and ,;c ange Commission articles of incorporation ; ; ;.A !#$s a'e no articles of incorporation& no incorporators and no stoc7 olders or members. T ere are no stoc7 olders or members to elect t e board directors of !#$s as in t e case of all corporations registered 0it t e Securities and ,;c ange Commission. T e local mayor or t e pro'incial go'ernor appoints t e directors of !#$s for a fi;ed term of office. !#$s e;ist by 'irtue of 3$ ()4& 0 ic constitutes t eir special c arter. Since under t e Constitution only go'ernment:o0ned or controlled corporations may a'e special c arters& !#$s can 'alidly e;ist only if t ey are go'ernment:o0ned or controlled. To claim t at !#$s are pri'ate corporations 0it a special c arter is to admit t at t eir e;istence is constitutionally infirm. <nli7e pri'ate corporations& 0 ic deri'e t eir legal e;istence and po0er from t e Corporation Code& !#$s deri'e t eir legal e;istence and po0er from 3$ ()4.

&APPAR$ '. &A(A)"AAN, petitioner, vs. *%+ %,N,RA-L+ C,.R* ,F APP+AL&, *%+ C$/$L &+R/$C+ C,00$&&$,N and AL1 A0ANA% $N/+&*0+N* -AN' ,F *%+ P%$L$PP$N+&, respondents. )+C$&$,N C%$C,1NA2AR$,, J.# T is is a petition for certiorari under Rule 16 of t e Rules of Court of t e $ecision ?(@ of t e Court of Appeals of 82 "arc ())) affirming Resolutions No. )=:==48 and No. )6:.56= of t e Ci'il Ser'ice Commission (CSC) dated (( August ())= and (( April ())6& respecti'ely& 0 ic in turn affirmed Resolution No. .82) of t e Board of $irectors of t e Al:Amana Islamic In'estment Ban7 of t e 3 ilippines (AIIB3) dated (8 $ecember ())8& finding petitioner guilty of $is onesty in t e 3erformance of Official $uties andCor Conduct 3reDudicial to t e Best Interest of t e Ser'ice and dismissing im from t e ser'ice& and its Resolution?.@ of (6 $ecember ())) dismissing petitioner/s "otion for Reconsideration. T e records s o0 t at petitioner Sappari E. Sa0adDaan 0as among t e first employees of t e 3 ilippine Amana Ban7 (3AB) 0 en it 0as created by 'irtue of 3residential $ecree No. .1= on 2. August ()58. Fe rose t roug t e ran7s& 0or7ing is 0ay up from is initial designation as security guard& to settling cler7& boo77eeper& credit in'estigator& proDect analyst& appraiserC inspector& and e'entually& loans analyst. ?8@ In -ebruary ()44& 0 ile still designated as appraiserCin'estigator& Sa0adDaan 0as assigned to inspect t e properties offered as collaterals by Compressed Air "ac ineries and ,%uipment Corporation (CA",C) for a credit line of -i'e "illion 3esos (36&222&222.22). T e properties consisted of t0o parcels of land co'ered by Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) No. N:(8215( and No. C:6.651. On t e basis of is Inspection and Appraisal Report& ?=@ t e 3AB granted t e loan application. # en t e loan matured on (5 "ay ()4)& CA",C re%uested an e;tension of (42 days& but 0as granted only (.2 days to repay t e loan. ?6@ In t e meantime& Sa0adDaan 0as promoted to !oans Analyst I on 2( *uly ()4). ?1@ In *anuary ())2& Congress passed Republic Act 14=4 creating t e AIIB3 and repealing 3.$. No. .1= (0 ic created t e 3AB). All assets& liabilities and capital accounts of t e 3AB 0ere transferred to t e AIIB3& ?5@ and t e e;isting personnel of t e 3AB 0ere to continue to disc arge t eir functions unless disc arged.?4@ In t e ensuing reorgani9ation& Sa0adDaan 0as among t e personnel retained by t e AIIB3. # en CA",C failed to pay despite t e gi'en e;tension& t e ban7& no0 referred to as t e AIIB3& disco'ered t at TCT No. N:(8215( 0as spurious& t e property described t erein non:e;istent& and t at t e property co'ered by TCT No. C:6.651 ad a prior e;isting mortgage in fa'or of one $i'ina 3ablico. On 24 *une ())8& t e Board of $irectors of t e AIIB3 created an In'estigating Committee to loo7 into t e CA",C transaction& 0 ic ad cost t e ban7 Si; "illion 3esos (31&222&222.22) in losses. ?)@ T e subse%uent e'ents& as found and decided upon by t e Court of Appeals& ?(2@ are as follo0sG On (4 *une ())8& petitioner recei'ed a memorandum from Islamic Ban7 ?AIIB3@ C airman Roberto -. $e Ocampo c arging im 0it $is onesty in t e 3erformance of Official $uties andCor Conduct 3reDudicial to t e Best Interest of t e Ser'ice and pre'enti'ely suspending im. In is memorandum dated 4 September ())8& petitioner informed t e In'estigating Committee t at e could not submit imself to t e Durisdiction of t e Committee because of its alleged partiality. -or is failure to appear before t e earing set on (5 September ())8& after t e earing of (8 September ())8 0as postponed due to t e "anifestation of e'en date filed by petitioner& t e In'estigating Committee declared petitioner in default and t e prosecution 0as allo0ed to present its e'idence ex parte.

On 24 $ecember ())8& t e In'estigating Committee rendered a decision& t e pertinent portions of 0 ic reads as follo0sG In 'ie0 of respondent SA#A$*AAN/S abDect failure to perform is duties and assigned tas7s as appraiserCinspector& 0 ic resulted to t e preDudice and substantial damage to t e Ban7& respondent s ould be eld liable t erefore. At t is Duncture& o0e'er& t e In'estigating Committee is of t e considered opinion t at e could not be eld liable for t e administrati'e offense of dis onesty considering t e fact t at no e'idence 0as adduced to s o0 t at e profited or benefited from being remiss in t e performance of is duties. T e record is bereft of any e'idence 0 ic 0ould s o0 t at e recei'ed any amount in consideration for is non:performance of is official duties. T is not0it standing& respondent cannot escape liability. As ad'erted to earlier& is failure to perform is official duties resulted to t e preDudice and substantial damage to t e Islamic Ban7 for 0 ic e s ould be eld liable for t e administrati'e offense of CON$<CT 3R,*<$ICIA! TO TF, B,ST INT,R,ST O- TF, S,RVIC,. 3remises considered& t e In'estigating Committee recommends t at respondent SA33ARI SA#A$*AAN be meted t e penalty of SIH (1) "ONTFS and ON, (() $AI S<S3,NSION from office in accordance 0it t e Ci'il Ser'ice Commission/s "emorandum Circular No. 82& Series of ()4). On (8 $ecember ())8& t e Board of $irectors of t e Islamic Ban7 ?AIIB3@ adopted Resolution No. .82) finding petitioner guilty of $is onesty in t e 3erformance of Official $uties andCor Conduct 3reDudicial to t e Best Interest of t e Ser'ice and imposing t e penalty of $ismissal from t e Ser'ice. On reconsideration& t e Board of $irectors of t e Islamic Ban7 ?AIIB3@ adopted t e Resolution No. .88. on .2 -ebruary ())= reducing t e penalty imposed on petitioner from dismissal to suspension for a period of si; (1) mont s and one (() day. On .) "arc ())=& petitioner filed a notice of appeal to t e "erit System 3rotection Board ("S3B). On (( August ())=& t e CSC adopted Resolution No. )=:==48 dismissing t e appeal for lac7 of merit and affirming Resolution No. .82) dated (8 $ecember ())8 of t e Board of $irectors of Islamic Ban7. On (( April ())6& t e CSC adopted Resolution No. )6:.65= denying petitioner/s "otion for Reconsideration. On (1 *une ())6& t e instant petition 0as filed 0it t e Fonorable Supreme Court on t e follo0ing assignment of errorsG I. 3ublic respondent Al:Amana Islamic In'estment Ban7 of t e 3 ilippines as committed a gra'e abuse of discretion amounting to e;cess or lac7 of Durisdiction 0 en it initiated and conducted administrati'e in'estigation 0it out a 'alidly promulgated rules of procedure in t e adDudication of administrati'e cases at t e Islamic Ban7. II. 3ublic respondent Ci'il Ser'ice Commission as committed a gra'e abuse of discretion amounting to lac7 of Durisdiction 0 en it prematurely and falsely assumed Durisdiction of t e case not appealed to it& but to t e "erit System 3rotection Board. III. Bot t e Islamic Ban7 and t e Ci'il Ser'ice Commission erred in finding petitioner Sa0adDaan of a'ing deliberately reporting false information and t erefore guilty of $is onesty and Conduct 3reDudicial to t e Best Interest of t e Ser'ice and penali9ed 0it dismissal from t e ser'ice. On 2= *uly ())6& t e Fonorable Supreme Court En Banc referred t is petition to t is Fonorable Court pursuant to Re'ised Administrati'e Circular No. (:)6& 0 ic too7 effect on 2( *une ())6. #e do not find merit ?in@ t e petition. Anent t e first assignment of error& a reading of t e records 0ould re'eal t at petitioner raises for t e first time t e alleged failure of t e Islamic Ban7 ?AIIB3@ to promulgate rules of procedure go'erning t e adDudication and disposition of administrati'e cases in'ol'ing its personnel. It is a rule t at issues not properly broug t and 'entilated belo0 may not be raised for t e first time on appeal& sa'e in e;ceptional circumstances ( Casolita !r. v. Co"rt o# $ppeals& .56 SCRA .65) none of 0 ic & o0e'er& obtain in t is case. +rantingarg"endo t at t e issue is of suc e;ceptional c aracter t at t e Court may ta7e cogni9ance of t e same& still& it must fail. Section .1 of Republic Act No. 14=4 (())2) pro'idesG Section .1. 3o0ers of t e Board. T e Board of $irectors s all a'e t e %roadest powers to manage the &slamic Ban'& ; ; ; T e Board s all adopt policy guidelines necessary to carry out effecti'ely t e pro'isions of t is C arter as 0ell as internal r"les and reg"lationsnecessary for t e conduct of its Islamic ban7ing business and all matters related to personnel organi(ation o##ice #"nctions and salar) administration . (Italics ours) On t e ot er and& Item No. . of ,;ecuti'e Order No. .1 (()).) entitled >3rescribing 3rocedure and Sanctions to ,nsure Speedy $isposition of Administrati'e CasesA directs& >all administrati'e agenciesA to >adopt and include in t eir respecti'e Rules of 3rocedureA pro'isions designed to abbre'iate administrati'e proceedings. T e abo'e t0o (.) pro'isions relied upon by petitioner does not re%uire t e Islamic Ban7 ?AIIB3@ to promulgate rules of procedure before administrati'e discipline may be imposed upon its employees. T e internal rules of procedures ordained to be adopted by t e Board refers to t at necessary for t e conduct of its Islamic ban7ing business and all matters related to >personnel organi9ation& office functions and salary administration.A On t e contrary& Section .1 of RA 14=4 gi'es t e Board of $irectors of t e Islamic Ban7 t e >broadest po0ers to manage t e Islamic Ban7.A T is grant of broad po0ers 0ould be an idle ceremony if it 0ould be po0erless to discipline its employees. T e second assignment of error must li7e0ise fail. T e issue is raised for t e first time via t is petition for certiorari. 3etitioner submitted imself to t e Durisdiction of t e CSC. Alt oug e could a'e raised t e alleged lac7 of Durisdiction in is "otion for Reconsideration of Resolution No. )=:==48 of t e CSC& e did not do so. By filing t e "otion for Reconsideration& e is estopped from denying t e CSC/s Durisdiction o'er im& as it is settled rule t at a party 0 o as7s for an affirmati'e relief cannot later on impugn t e action of t e tribunal as 0it out Durisdiction after an ad'erse result 0as meted to im. Alt oug Durisdiction o'er t e subDect matter of a case may be obDected to at any stage of t e proceedings e'en on appeal& t is particular rule& o0e'er& means t at Durisdictional issues in a case can be raised only during t e proceedings in said case and during t e appeal of said case ( $ragon v. Co"rt o# $ppeals& .52 SCRA 128). T e case at bar is a petition ?for@ certiorari and not an appeal. But e'en on t e merits t e argument must falter. Item No. ( of CSC Resolution No. )8:.845 dated .) *une ())8& pro'idesG

$ecisions in administrati'e cases in'ol'ing officials and employees of t e ci'il ser'ice appealable to t e Commission pursuant to Section =5 of Boo7 V of t e Code (i.e.& Administrati'e Code of ()45) including personnel actions suc as contested appointments s all no0 be appealed directly to t e Commission and not to t e "S3B. In *"%enecia v. Civil !ervice Commission .== SCRA 1=2& 16(& it 0as categorically eldG . . . T e functions of t e "S3B relating to t e determination of administrati'e disciplinary cases 0ere& in ot er 0ords& re:allocated to t e Commission itself. Be t at as it may& >(i)t is ornboo7 doctrine t at in order J(t)o ascertain 0 et er a court (in t is case& administrati'e agency) as Durisdiction or not& t e pro'isions of t e la0 s ould be in%uired into./ -urt ermore& Jt e Durisdiction of t e court must appear clearly from t e statute la0 or it 0ill not be eld to e;ist./A($(arcon v. !andigan%a)an& .14 SCRA 5=5& 565) -rom t e pro'ision of la0 abo'ecited& t e Ci'il Ser'ice Commission clearly as Durisdiction o'er t e Administrati'e Case against petitioner. Anent t e t ird assignment of error& 0e li7e0ise do not find merit in petitioner/s proposition t at e s ould not be liable& as in t e first place& e 0as not %ualified to perform t e functions of appraiserCin'estigator because e lac7ed t e necessary training and e;pertise& and t erefore& s ould not a'e been found dis onest by t e Board of $irectors of Islamic Ban7 ?AIIB3@ and t e CSC. 3etitioner imself admits t at t e position of appraiserCinspector is >one of t e most serious ?and@ sensiti'e Dob in t e ban7ing operations.A Fe s ould a'e been a0are t at accepting suc a designation& e is obliged to perform t e tas7 at and by t e e;ercise of more t an ordinary prudence. As appraiserCin'estigator& e is e;pected& among ot ers& to c ec7 t e aut enticity of t e documents presented by t e borro0er by comparing t em 0it t e originals on file 0it t e proper go'ernment office. Fe s ould a'e made it sure t at t e tec nical descriptions in t e location plan on file 0it t e Bureau of !ands of "ari7ina& Dibe 0it t at indicated in t e TCT of t e collateral offered by CA",C& and t at t e mortgage in fa'or of t e Islamic Ban7 0as duly annotated at t e bac7 of t e copy of t e TCT 7ept by t e Register of $eeds of "ari7ina. T is& petitioner failed to do& for 0 ic e must be eld liable. T at e did not profit from is false report is of no moment. Neit er t e fact t at it 0as not deliberate or 0illful& detracts from t e nature of t e act as dis onest. # at is apparent is e stated somet ing to be a fact& 0 en e really 0as not sure t at it 0as so. #F,R,-OR,& abo'e premises considered& t e instant 3etition is $IS"ISS,$& and t e assailed Resolutions of t e Ci'il Ser'ice Commission are ereby A--IR",$. On .= "arc ()))& Sa0adDaan/s counsel notified t e court a +"o of is c ange of address&?((@ but apparently neglected to notify is client of t is fact. T us& on .8 *uly ()))& Sa0adDaan& by imself& filed a "otion for Ne0 Trial ?(.@ in t e Court of Appeals based on t e follo0ing groundsG fraud& accident& mista7e or e;cusable negligence and ne0ly disco'ered e'idence. Fe claimed t at e ad recently disco'ered t at at t e time is employment 0as terminated& t e AIIB3 ad not yet adopted its corporate by:la0s. Fe attac ed a Certification ?(8@ by t e Securities and ,;c ange Commission (S,C) t at it 0as only on .5 "ay ()). t at t e AIIB3 submitted its draft by:la0s to t e S,C& and t at its registration 0as being eld in abeyance pending certain corrections being made t ereon. Sa0adDaan argued t at since t e AIIB3 failed to file its by:la0s 0it in 12 days from t e passage of Rep. Act No. 14=4& as re%uired by Sec. 6( of t e said la0& t e ban7 and its stoc7 olders ad >already forfeited its franc ise or c arter& including its license to e;ist and operate as a corporation&A?(=@ and t us no longer a'e >t e legal standing and personality to initiate an administrati'e case.A Sa0adDaan/s counsel subse%uently adopted is motion& but re%uested t at it be treated as a motion for reconsideration. ?(6@ T is motion 0as denied by t e court a +"o in its Resolution of (6 $ecember ())).?(1@ Still dis eartened& Sa0adDaan filed t e present petition for certiorari under Rule 16 of t e Rules of Court c allenging t e abo'e $ecision and Resolution of t e Court of Appeals on t e ground t at t e court a +"o erredG i) in ignoring t e facts and e'idences t at t e alleged Islamic Ban7 as no 'alid by:la0sK ii) in ignoring t e facts and e'idences t at t e Islamic Ban7 lost its Duridical personality as a corporation on (1 April ())2K iii) in ignoring t e facts and e'idences t at t e alleged Islamic Ban7 and its alleged Board of $irectors a'e no Durisdiction to act in t e manner t ey did in t e absence of a 'alid by:la0sK i') in not correcting t e acts of t e Ci'il Ser'ice Commission 0 o erroneously rendered t e assailed Resolutions No. )=:==48 and No. )6:.56= as a result of fraud& falsification andCor misrepresentations committed by -arou7 A. Carpi9o and is group& including Roberto -. de OcampoK ') in affirming an unconscionably ars andCor e;cessi'e penaltyK and 'i) in failing to consider ne0ly disco'ered e'idence and re'erse its decision accordingly. Subse%uently& petitioner Sa0adDaan filed an >Ex-parte <rgent "otion for Additional ,;tension of Time to -ile a Reply (to t e Comments of Respondent Al:Amana In'estment Ban7 of t e 3 ilippines)& ?(5@ Reply (to Respondent/s Consolidated Comment&) ?(4@ and Reply (to t e Alleged Comments of Respondent Al:Amana Islamic Ban7 of t e 3 ilippines).A ?()@ On (8 October .222& e informed t is Court t at e ad terminated is la0yer/s ser'ices& and& by imself& prepared and filed t e follo0ingG () "otion for Ne0 TrialK ?.2@ .) "otion to $eclare Respondents in $efault andCor Fa'ing #ai'ed t eir Rig ts to Interpose ObDection to 3etitioner/s "otion for Ne0 TrialK ?.(@ 8) Ex-,arte <rgent "otions to 3unis Attorneys Amado $. Valde9& ,lpidio *. Vega& Alda +. Reyes& $ominador R. Isidoro& *r.& and Odilon A. $ia9 for Being in Contempt of Court L to In ibit t em from Appearing in t is Case <ntil t ey Can 3resent Valid ,'idence of !egal Aut orityK ?..@ =) OppositionCReply (to Respondent AIIB3/s Alleged Comment)K?.8@ 6) Ex,arte <rgent "otion to 3unis Atty. Reynaldo A. 3ineda for Contempt of Court and t e Issuance of a Commitment OrderC#arrant for Fis ArrestK ?.=@ 1) ReplyCOpposition (To t e -ormal Notice of #it dra0al of <ndersigned Counsel as !egal Counsel for t e Respondent Islamic Ban7 0it Opposition to 3etitioner/s "otion to 3unis <ndersigned Counsel for Contempt of Court for t e Issuance of a #arrant of Arrest)K ?.6@ 5) "emorandum for 3etitionerK ?.1@ 4) Opposition to Sol+en/s "otion for Clarification 0it "otion for $efault andCor #ai'er of Respondents to -ile t eir "emorandumK ?.5@ )) "otion for Contempt of Court and In ibitionC$is%ualification 0it Opposition to O+CC/s "otion for ,;tension of Time to -ile "emorandumK ?.4@ (2) "otion for ,nforcement (In $efense of t e Rule of !a0)K ?.)@ (() "otion and Opposition ("otion to 3unis O+CC/s Attorneys Amado $. Valde9& ,fren B. +on9ales& Alda +. Reyes& Odilon A. $ia9 and $ominador R. Isidoro& *r.& for Contempt of Court and t e Issuance of a #arrant for t eir ArrestK and Opposition to t eir Alleged >"anifestation and "otionA $ated -ebruary 6& .22.)K ?82@ (.) "otion for Reconsideration of Item (a) of Resolution dated 6 -ebruary .22. 0it Supplemental "otion for Contempt of CourtK ?8(@ (8) "otion for Reconsideration of 3ortion of Resolution $ated (. "arc .22.K ?8.@ (=) ,;:3arte <rgent "otion for ,;tension of Time to -ile Reply "emorandum (ToG CSC and AIIB3/s "emorandum)K ?88@ (6) Reply "emorandum (ToG CSC/s "emorandum) #it ,;:3arte <rgent "otion for Additional ,;tension of time to -ile Reply "emorandum (ToG AIIB3/s "emorandum)K ?8=@ and (1) Reply "emorandum (ToG O+CC/s "emorandum for Respondent AIIB3). ?86@ 3etitioner/s efforts are una'ailing& and 0e deny is petition for its procedural and substanti'e fla0s. T e general rule is t at t e remedy to obtain re'ersal or modification of t e Dudgment on t e merits is appeal. T is is true e'en if t e error& or one of t e errors& ascribed to t e court rendering t e Dudgment is its lac7 of Durisdiction o'er t e subDect matter& or t e e;ercise of po0er in e;cess t ereof& or gra'e abuse of discretion in t e findings of fact or of la0 set out in t e decision. ?81@ T e records s o0 t at petitioner/s counsel recei'ed t e Resolution of t e Court of Appeals denying is motion for reconsideration on .5 $ecember ())). T e fifteen day reglamentary period to appeal under Rule =6 of t e Rules of Court t erefore lapsed on (( *anuary .222. On .8 -ebruary .222& o'er a mont after receipt of t e resolution denying is motion for reconsideration& t e petitioner filed is petition for certiorari under Rule 16. It is settled t at a special ci'il action for certiorari 0ill not lie as a substitute for t e lost remedy of appeal& ?85@ and t oug t ere are instances?84@ 0 ere t e e;traordinary remedy of certiorari may be resorted to despite t e a'ailability of an appeal& ?8)@ 0e find no special reasons for ma7ing out an e;ception in t is case.

,'en if 0e 0ere to o'erloo7 t is fact in t e broader interests of Dustice and treat t is as a special ci'il action for certiorariunder Rule 16&?=2@ t e petition 0ould ne'ert eless be dismissed for failure of t e petitioner to s o0 gra'e abuse of discretion. 3etitioner/s recurrent argument& tenuous at its 'ery best& is premised on t e fact t at since respondent AIIB3 failed to file its by:la0s 0it in t e designated 12 days from t e effecti'ity of Rep. Act No. 14=4& all proceedings initiated by AIIB3 and all actions resulting t erefrom are a patent nullity. Or& in is 0ords& t e AIIB3 and its officers and Board of $irectors& . . . ?F@a'e no legal aut ority nor Durisdiction to manage muc less operate t e Islamic Ban7& file administrati'e c arges and in'estigate petitioner in t e manner t ey did and allegedly passed Board Resolution No. .82) on $ecember (8& ())8 0 ic is null and 'oid for lac7 of an (sic) aut ori9ed and 'alid by:la0s. T e CIVI! S,RVIC, CO""ISSION 0as t erefore affirming& erroneously& a null and 'oid >Resolution No. .82) dated $ecember (8& ())8 of t e Board of $irectors of Al:Amana Islamic In'estment Ban7 of t e 3 ilippinesA in CSC Resolution No. )=:==48 dated August ((& ())=. A motion for reconsideration t ereof 0as denied by t e CSC in its Resolution No. )6:.56= dated April ((& ())6. Bot actsCresolutions of t e CSC are erroneous& resulting from fraud& falsifications and misrepresentations of t e alleged C airman and C,O Roberto -. de Ocampo and t e alleged $irector -arou7 A. Carpi9o and is group at t e alleged Islamic Ban7.?=(@ No0 ere in petitioner/s 'oluminous pleadings is t ere a s o0ing t at t e court a +"o committed gra'e abuse of discretion amounting to lac7 or e;cess of Durisdiction re'ersible by a petition for certiorari. 3etitioner already raised t e %uestion of AIIB3/s corporate e;istence and lac7 of Durisdiction in is "otion for Ne0 TrialC"otion for Reconsideration of .5 "ay ())5 and 0as denied by t e Court of Appeals. $espite t e 'olume of pleadings e as submitted t us far& e as added not ing substantial to is arguments. T e AIIB3 0as created by Rep. Act No. 14=4. It as a main office 0 ere it conducts business& as s are olders& corporate officers& a board of directors& assets& and personnel. It is& in fact& ere represented by t e Office of t e +o'ernment Corporate Counsel& >t e principal la0 office of go'ernment:o0ned corporations& one of 0 ic is respondent ban7.A ?=.@ At t e 'ery least& by its failure to submit its by:la0s on time& t e AIIB3 may be considered a de #acto corporation?=8@0 ose rig t to e;ercise corporate po0ers may not be in%uired into collaterally in any pri'ate suit to 0 ic suc corporations may be a party.?==@ "oreo'er& a corporation 0 ic as failed to file its by:la0s 0it in t e prescribed period does not ipso #acto lose its po0ers as suc . T e S,C Rules on SuspensionCRe'ocation of t e Certificate of Registration of Corporations& ?=6@ details t e procedures and remedies t at may be a'ailed of before an order of re'ocation can be issued. T ere is no s o0ing t at suc a procedure as been initiated in t is case. In any case& petitioner/s argument is irrele'ant because t is case is not a corporate contro'ersy& but a labor disputeK and it is an employer/s basic rig t to freely select or disc arge its employees& if only as a measure of self:protection against acts inimical to its interest. ?=1@ Regardless of 0 et er AIIB3 is a corporation& a partners ip& a sole proprietors ip& or a sari-sari store& it is an undisputed fact t at AIIB3 is t e petitioner/s employer. AIIB3 c ose to retain is ser'ices during its reorgani9ation& controlled t e means and met ods by 0 ic is 0or7 0as to be performed& paid is 0ages& and& e'entually& terminated is ser'ices.?=5@ And t oug e as ad ample opportunity to do so& t e petitioner as not alleged t at e is anyt ing ot er t an an employee of AIIB3. Fe as neit er claimed& nor s o0n& t at e is a stoc7 older or an officer of t e corporation. Fa'ing accepted employment from AIIB3& and rendered is ser'ices to t e said ban7& recei'ed is salary& and accepted t e promotion gi'en im& it is no0 too late in t e day for petitioner to %uestion its e;istence and its po0er to terminate is ser'ices. One 0 o assumes an obligation to an ostensible corporation as suc & cannot resist performance t ereof on t e ground t at t ere 0as in fact no corporation.?=4@ ,'en if 0e 0ere to consider t e facts be ind petitioner Sa0adDaan/s dismissal from ser'ice& 0e 0ould be ard pressed to find error in t e decision of t e AIIB3. As appraiserCin'estigator& t e petitioner 0as e;pected to conduct an ocular inspection of t e properties offered by CA",C as collaterals and c ec7 t e copies of t e certificates of title against t ose on file 0it t e Registry of $eeds. Not only did e fail to conduct t ese routine c ec7s& but e also deliberately misrepresented in is appraisal report t at after re'ie0ing t e documents and conducting a site inspection& e found t e CA",C loan application to be in order. $espite t e number of pleadings e as filed& e as failed to offer an alternati'e e;planation for is actions. # en e 0as informed of t e c arges against im and directed to appear and present is side on t e matter& t e petitioner sent instead a memorandum %uestioning t e fairness and impartiality of t e members of t e in'estigating committee and refusing to recogni9e t eir Durisdiction o'er im. Ne'ert eless& t e in'estigating committee resc eduled t e earing to gi'e t e petitioner anot er c ance& but e still refused to appear before it. T ereafter& 0itnesses 0ere presented& and a decision 0as rendered finding im guilty of dis onesty and dismissing im from ser'ice. Fe soug t a reconsideration of t is decision and t e same committee 0 ose impartiality e %uestioned reduced t eir recommended penalty to suspension for si; mont s and one day. T e board of directors& o0e'er& opted to dismiss im from ser'ice. On appeal to t e CSC& t e Commission found t at Sa0adDaan/s failure to perform is official duties greatly preDudiced t e AIIB3& for 0 ic s ould be eld accountable. It eld t atG . . . (I)t is crystal clear t at respondent SA33ARI SA#A$*AAN 0as remiss in t e performance of is duties as appraiserCinspector. Fad respondent performed is duties as appraiserCinspector& e could a'e easily noticed t at t e property located at Balinta0a7& Caloocan City co'ered by TCT No. C: 6.651 and 0 ic is one of t e properties offered as collateral by CA",C is encumbered to $i'ina 3ablico. Fad respondent reflected suc fact in is appraisalCinspection report on said property t e IS!A"IC BANE 0ould not a'e appro'ed CA",C/s loan of 3622&222.22 in ()45 and CA",C/s 36 "illion loan in ()44& respondent 7no0ing fully 0ell t e Ban7/s policy of not accepting encumbered properties as collateral. Respondent SA#A$*AAN/s repre ensible act is furt er aggra'ated 0 en e failed to c ec7 and 'erify from t e Registry of $eeds of "ari7ina t e aut enticity of t e property located at "ayamot& Antipolo& Ri9al co'ered by TCT No. N:(8215( and 0 ic is one of t e properties offered as collateral by CA",C for its 36 "illion loan in ()44. If e only 'isited and 'erified 0it t e Register of $eeds of "ari7ina t e aut enticity of TCT No. N:(8215( e could a'e easily disco'ered t at TCT No. N:(8215( is fa7e and t e property described t erein non:e;istent. ... T is not0it standing& respondent cannot escape liability. As ad'erted to earlier& is failure to perform is official duties resulted to t e preDudice and substantial damage to t e IS!A"IC BANE for 0 ic e s ould be eld liable for t e administrati'e offense of CON$<CT 3R,*<$ICIA! TO TF, B,ST INT,R,ST O- TF, S,RVIC,.?=)@ -rom t e foregoing& 0e find t at t e CSC and t e court a +"o committed no gra'e abuse of discretion 0 en t ey sustained Sa0adDaan/s dismissal from ser'ice. +ra'e abuse of discretion implies suc capricious and 0 imsical e;ercise of Dudgment as e%ui'alent to lac7 of Durisdiction& or& in ot er 0ords& 0 ere t e po0er is e;ercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal ostility& and it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an e'asion of positi'e duty or to a 'irtual refusal to perform t e duty enDoined or to act at all in contemplation of la0. ?62@ T e records s o0 t at t e respondents did none of t eseK t ey acted in accordance 0it t e la0. (%+R+F,R+& t e petition is $IS"ISS,$. T e $ecision of t e Court of Appeals of 82 "arc ())) affirming Resolutions No. )=:==48 and No. )6:.56= of t e Ci'il Ser'ice Commission& and its Resolution of (6 $ecember ())) are ereby A--IR",$. Costs against t e petitioner. e

*+C&,N /&. C,0+L+C +.R. No. (1(=8=& "arc 8 .22= -ACTSG Respondent Ronald Allan Eelly 3oe& also 7no0n as -ernando 3oe& *r. (-3*) filed is certificate of candidacy on 8( $ecember .228 for t e position of 3resident of t e Republic of t e 3 ilippines in t e fort coming national elections. In is certificate of candidacy& -3*&representing imself to be a natural:born citi9en of t e 3 ilippines& stated is name to be M-ernando *r.&M or MRonald AllanM 3oe& is date of birt to be .2 August ()8) and is place of birt to be "anila. 3etitioner -ornier filed before t e CO",!,C a petition to dis%ualify -3* and cancel is certificate of candidacy by claiming t at -3* is not a natural: born -ilipino citi9en& is parents 0ere foreignersG is mot er& Bessie Eelley 3oe& 0as an American& and is fat er& Allan 3oe& 0as a Spanis national& being t e son of !oren9o 3ou& a Spanis subDect.

T e CO",!,C dismissed t e petition for lac7 of merit. ISS<,G # et er or not -3* is a natural:born citi9en of t e 3 ilippines. F,!$G Section .& Article VII& of t e ()45 Constitution e;pressesG No person may be elected 3resident unless e is a natural:born citi9en of t e 3 ilippines& a registered 'oter& able to read and 0rite& at least forty years of age on t e day of t e election& and a resident of t e 3 ilippines for at least ten years immediately preceding suc election. Natural:born citi9ens are t ose 0 o are citi9ens of t e 3 ilippines from birt 0it out a'ing to perform any act to ac%uire or perfect t eir 3 ilippine citi9ens ip. Based on t e e'idence presented 0 ic t e Supreme consider as 'iable is t e fact t at t e deat certificateof !oren9o 3oe& fat er of Allan 3oe& 0 o in turn 0as t e fat er of pri'ate respondent -ernando 3oe& *r. indicates t at e died on September ((& ()6= at t e age of 4= years& in San Carlos& 3angasinan. ,'idently& in suc deat certificate& t e residence of !oren9o 3oe 0as stated to be San Carlos& 3angansinan. In t e absence of any e'idence to t e contrary& it s ould be sound to conclude& or at least to presume& t at t e place of residence of a person at t e time of is deat 0as also is residence before deat . Considering t at t e allegations of petitioners are not substantiated 0it proof and since !oren9o 3oe may a'e been benefited from t e >en masse -ilipini9ationA t at t e 3 ilippine Bill ad effected in ()2.& t ere is no doubt t at Allan 3oe fat er of pri'ate respondent -ernando 3oe& *r. 0as a -ilipino citi9en. And& since t e latter 0as born on August .2& ()8)& go'erned under ()86 Constitution& 0 ic constitution considers as citi9ens of t e 3 ilippines t ose 0 ose fat ers are citi9ens of t e 3 ilippines& -ernando 3oe& *r. 0as in fact a natural: born citi9en of t e 3 ilippines regardless of 0 et er or not e is legitimate or illegitimate.