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 banks 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 committees finding was in line with the complaint filed against respondent. The
committees report was later on referred to petitioners 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
Banks rules and regulations and that abuse of confidence should be considered against him.
Petitioners 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 respondents 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 petitioners 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 respondents
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 nal 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 oense, the admission of this document would readily reveal that this
is not his first offense.