ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 131186. January 17, 2001]

LAND BANK OF THE PHIL. vs. CA, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN. 17 2001.

G.R. No. 131186 (Land Bank of the Philippines vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals and Isabelo L. Galang.)

Acting on the sworn complaints of four client/borrowers of petitioner bank, the latter instituted two separate administrative charges ¹ Administrative Case Nos. 88-002 and 88-003.against private respondent Isabelo Galang (hereinafter referred to as respondent Galang) and Conrado Ocampo for Dishonesty; Misconduct; Receiving for Personal Use of a Fee, Gift or Other Valuable Thing in the Course of Official Duties in Connection Therewith or Committing Acts Punishable under the Anti-Graft Laws; and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. An additional charge of Gross Neglect of Duty and Violation of Rules and Regulations was further filed against respondent Galang. It was alleged that on different occasions in 1986, respondent Galang being the Manager of the petitioner's Baliuag Branch, and Conrado Ocampo, project analyst in the same branch, demanded and received sums of money in consideration of their assistance in facilitating the approval of the complainants' loans and the reduction of interest rates or condonation of penalties thereon.

After hearing, petitioner found respondents guilty and imposed on them the penalty of forced resignation with forfeiture of all benefits. On May 28, 1990, respondent Galang filed an Appeal with the Merit Systems and Protection Board, ² MSPB Case No. 91-852.which affirmed the Decision of petitioner, but absolved him of the additional charge of Gross Neglect of Duty and Violation of Rules and Regulations. Galang filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied. Thus, he filed an Appeal with the Civil Service Commission, which, however, dismissed the same on March 12, 1993. His Motion for Reconsideration was likewise denied on September 10, 1993.

Respondent Galang's Petition for Certiorari filed with this Court was referred to the Court of Appeals. On November 21, 1996, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed Decision ³ CA-G.R. SP No. 37791, penned by Justice Arturo B. Buena, with Justices Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez and Bernardo Ll. Salas, concurring; Petition, Annex "A", Rollo, pp. 41-66.nullifying the resolutions of the Civil Service Commission ordering the dismissal of the complaint against respondent Galang. Subsequently, the Court of Appeals denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration and, by way of clarification, ordered the reinstatement of respondent Galang with backwages not exceeding his salary for five (5) years. ⁴ Petition, Annex "B", Rollo, pp. 68-70.

Petitioner is now before this Court on a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65.

The extra-ordinary remedy of certiorari under Rule 65 is available only if the aggrieved party has no plain, speedy and adequate remedy to correct an alleged grave abuse of discretion. ⁵ Province of Bulacan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126232, 299 SCRA 442 [1998]; National Steel v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 134437, January 31, 2000; Mayor Abdula v. Hon. Guiani, G.R. No. 118821, February 18, 2000.Well-settled is the rule that the remedy against a decision of the Court of Appeals is to file a Petition for Review under 45 and not avail of the extraordinary writ under Rule 65. ⁶ National Irrigation Administration v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129169, 318 SCRA 255 [1999], citing Director v. Court of Appeals, 276 SCRA 276 [1997].It is evident that the instant Petition for Certiorari was an afterthought considering the expiration of the fifteen-day reglementary period under Rule 45. The record shows that petitioner received a copy of the Resolution of the Court of Appeals on September 15, 1997, and filed the instant Petition for Certiorari sixty days thereafter, on November 14, 1997.

Certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. Appeals and certiorari are mutually exclusive not alternative or successive remedies. ⁷ Bernardo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 106153, 275 SCRA 413 [1997].We see no reason to treat the instant petition for certiorari as an appeal. Accordingly, the instant Petition must be dismissed outright.

Be that as it may, the petition itself lacks merit. Petitioner insists that respondent Galang waived his right to cross-examine the affiants on the Affidavit-Complaints. However, the transcripts reveal otherwise.

At the hearing on April 7, 1989, respondent Galang made clear that he was admitting only the due execution of the affidavits but not the veracity or authenticity of the contents thereof. This was reiterated later at the hearing on April 24, 1989.

Waiver of constitutional rights cannot be implied, even in administrative cases with penal sanctions which partake of criminal proceedings, where the right to cross-examine the complainants and the witnesses is a basic norm of fair play. It should be noted that affidavits, even if sworn to, are usually incomplete and generally considered to be inferior to the testimony given in open court. ⁸ People v. Pontilar, Jr., 275 SCRA 338 (1997).They are generally taken ex parte and often inaccurate, sometimes from partial suggestion or for want of suggestions and inquiries. ⁹ People v. Abrera, 283 SCRA 1 (1997); People v. Erese, 281 SCRA 316 (1997); People v. Chavez, 278 SCRA 230 (1997).

ACCORDINGLY, based on the foregoing, the instant Petition is DISMISSED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE