Al Amanah Islamic Investment Bank vs. CSC and N. Malbun

Al-Amanah Islamic Investment Bank of the Philippines, vs. The Honorable Civil Service Commission and Napoleon M. Malbun, GR. No. 100599, 8 April 1992

Facts: Napoleon Malbun was a manager of petitioner bank’s branch in Cagayan de Oro. Controversy ensued when respondent was charged for neglect of duty, inefficiency and incompetence on account of alleged unauthorized and illegal encashment of commercial checks drawn against uncleared and unfunded deposits. An investigating committee was created to facilitate the investigation. The committee’s finding was in line with the complaint filed against respondent. The committee’s report was later on referred to petitioner’s corporate secretary. The latter recommended that respondent be charged of either (i) misconduct or conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the bank or (ii) neglect of duty with a higher penalty imposable under the CSC rules. The corporate secretary also indicated that respondent committed a violation of Central Bank’s rules and regulations and that abuse of confidence should be considered against him. Petitioner’s board of directors resolved to approve that respondent is guilty of neglect of duty with an imposable penalty of forced resignation without prejudice to reinstatement. Respondent appealed which resulted to the modification of the penalty to 6-months suspension. Petitioner bank countered the same and highlighted that the intricacies of respondent’s duties and responsibilities as branch manager. Petitioner pointed out that private respondent repeatedly committed same offense and that dismissal on account of the same is proper. Petitioner also assailed that circumstance of prior conviction of the respondent for neglect of duty in 1979 should be considered in determining the proper penalty to be imposed. CSC, on the other hand, maintained that prior conviction of private respondent cannot be considered as it is not a newly discovered evidence.

Issue/s: Whether or not prior conviction may be considered by the CSC in imposing the proper penalty on private respondent although it was presented only the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration/ new trial?

Ruling: Yes, SC held that prior conviction of respondent should be considered by CSC in determining the proper penalty for private respondent although it was presented only in the petitioner's motion for reconsideration/motion for new trial. SC explained that the document showing respondent’s conviction in 1979 should be admitted as evidence considering that it is a public document and within the judicial notice of the CSC. SC also explained that the CSC is the central personnel agency of the government. I t is the repository of all government appointments as well as all records of final decisions in administrative cases against government employees. Hence, it is deemed to have judicial notice of such prior conviction of the private respondent. SC further indicated that what the CSC should have done was to notify the private respondent to rebut such document. At any rate, the records reveal that the document showing prior conviction of the private respondent is indisputable. Necessarily, even if we consider the private respondent's repeated violations as one offense, the admission of this document would readily reveal that this is not his first offense.