MANILA, Philippines—The Supreme Court has upheld the dismissal for gross neglect of duty of a Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) manager whose branch nearly cleared for encashment a bogus P26-billion check in 2002.
The court en banc, voting 14-0, upheld the original ruling of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) dismissing Artemio San Juan Jr. from the service with all the accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, perpetual disqualification from reemployment in the government and forfeiture of retirement benefits.
In its decision dated April 2 but released only on Thursday, the high tribunal also set aside the Court of Appeals’ ruling that San Juan was only guilty of simple neglect of duty with a penalty of a six-month suspension.
San Juan, manager of the LBP branch in Binangonan, Rizal, was among the LBP officials, Bureau of Internal Revenue personnel and company executives charged with money laundering and estafa charges in connection with a P430-million tax diversion scam exposed in 2002 by the branch cashier, Acsa Ramirez.
Per curiam
In its per curiam ruling, the Supreme Court said San Juan “miserably failed” in discharging his functions as branch manager. The justices added, “Our review of the records convinces us that [San Juan’s] actuations constitute gross, and not simple neglect of duty.”
“A bank manager has the duty to ensure that the bank rules are strictly complied with not only to ensure efficient bank operation but also to serve the bank’s best interest,” the justices said.
The case stemmed from the attempt of one Esmayatin Bonsalagan to encash a China Bank check for P26 billion at LBP-Binangonan on July 14, 2002. The check was drawn against the account of CQ Ventures Corp., with Bonsalagan as the payee.
San Juan informed Ramirez and other bank officials about Bonsalagan’s desire to partially withdraw funds on the check. Ramirez expressed reservation to the client’s request because as a matter of policy and procedure, the check must first be cleared before the funds could be withdrawn.
Account opened
Nevertheless, on San Juan’s advice, Ramirez assisted in the opening of a
current/checking account with the branch where the check would first be deposited.
The manager personally cleared Bonsalagan for the opening of the account as the client had already presented to him the requirements, such as identification cards and specimen signature cards.
The check was forwarded to the LBP-Cainta because it was already past the cut-off time of the Binangonan branch. The Cainta branch asked that Binangonan report the check to the LBP area head office. Ramirez, against San Juan’s advice, did so and got authority to call China Bank to confirm the check.
The area head office later communicated with China Bank to withhold the clearing of the check and ordered Ramirez to close Bonsalagan’s checking account.
After an investigation, the LBP head office found out that the check was spurious and unfunded and that its account number did not belong to CQ Ventures but to a certain Jing Limbo and/or Arien Romero.
The LBP charged San Juan before the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) for gross neglect of duty for ordering that a current account be opened without properly verifying the depositor’s identity in accordance with bank policy; for not confirming the genuineness of the check and the legitimacy and sufficiency of its funds; and for issuing a check book to Bonsalagan without waiting for the check to be cleared, all of which were considered detrimental to the bank’s interest.
San Juan was also meted a preventive suspension.
In October 2004, the OGCC found San Juan guilty of gross neglect of duty and recommended that he be dismissed from the service. When the LBP board of directors adopted the OGCC’s findings, San Juan appealed to the CSC.
In a resolution issued in February 2006, the CSC affirmed San Juan’s dismissal, saying he had “full knowledge of the transaction done right before his eyes.”
San Juan went to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the CSC ruling, but it ruled that San Juan was only guilty of simple, not gross, neglect of duty. In 2009, the LBP elevated the case to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the appeals tribunal “misappreciated the import and significance of the facts of the case.”