Liability on Roads When Foresight Falls Short

The Supreme Court’s 2009 decision in Tejano v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 161778) clarifies a critical point for public officers and bank managers: discretionary authority does not shield unlawful acts that give unwarranted benefits. The case arose from a PNB branch manager’s decision to treat a colleague’s personal check as cash in the vault—a move that the Court found constituted a violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019).

The Facts of the Case

Cayetano Tejano Jr. was Vice-President of Philippine National Bank (PNB) and Manager of its Cebu (Casino Unit) Branch. In February 1991, he accommodated a personal Far East Bank check worth P200,000.00 issued by Dolores Arancillo, a Central Bank official. The check was placed in the bank vault in lieu of actual cash, and it remained there for several days, forming part of the branch’s “operating cash.”

The Commission on Audit later found that Arancillo had temporarily borrowed the amount without interest. The check was treated as cash in the vault from February 3 to 5, 1991, despite bank policies requiring that out-of-town checks be accepted only for deposit or collection, not outright encashment.

The Issue Before the Court

The central question was whether Tejano’s act of accommodating the check—and treating it as cash—constituted a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, which penalizes public officers who cause undue injury to the government or give unwarranted benefits through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court upheld the Sandiganbayan’s conviction of Tejano. The Court ruled that while check accommodation may be permissible under bank policy, the manner in which it was done here was objectionable. The check was placed in the vault in substitution for cash that was withdrawn, without proper recording in the bank’s books. This effectively made the check appear as operating cash for several days, to the bank’s detriment.

The Court emphasized that Tejano “took too much liberty of the discretionary authority granted to him under the bank’s policies.” This was not a case of legitimate accommodation, but what the Court described as “plain and simple unauthorized loan to Arancillo.”

Procedural Lessons: The Importance of Timely Appeals

Beyond the substantive ruling, the case also teaches a crucial procedural lesson. After the Sandiganbayan denied his motion for reconsideration on September 24, 2003, Tejano had 15 days—until October 25, 2003—to file a petition for review with the Supreme Court. Instead, he filed a motion for new trial, which the Court found to be a procedural misstep.

Under Section 7 of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by R.A. No. 8249, decisions of the Sandiganbayan are appealable to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari raising pure questions of law. A motion for new trial filed after the denial of a motion for reconsideration does not suspend the running of the appeal period. Consequently, the conviction became final and executory on October 26, 2003.

The Court also rejected Tejano’s attempt to use a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, noting that certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal. As the Court stated, “The right to appeal is a purely statutory right. Not being a natural right or a part of due process, the right to appeal may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the rules provided therefor.”

Practical Takeaways

• Discretion has limits. Bank managers and public officers cannot invoke discretionary authority to justify transactions that violate established policies and prejudice their institutions.
• Documentation matters. Treating a personal check as cash without proper recording in the books transforms an accommodation into an unauthorized loan, exposing the officer to criminal liability.
• Appeal deadlines are absolute. After a motion for reconsideration is denied, the 15-day period to appeal runs immediately. Filing a motion for new trial instead does not stop the clock.
• Certiorari is not a safety net. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 cannot be used when an appeal was available but not timely taken.
• New trial requires strict compliance. To justify a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, the accused must show the evidence could not have been discovered earlier, is material, and would probably change the judgment—supported by affidavits, not mere claims.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.