Puboff Cases
-
Upload
david-del-castillo -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of Puboff Cases
7/27/2019 Puboff Cases
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/puboff-cases 1/35
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Baguio City
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 130191 April 27, 1998
RODRIGO R. DUTERTE and BENJAMIN C. DE GUZMAN, petitioners,
vs.THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, respondent.
KAPUNAN, J.:
The right to a preliminary investigation is not a mere formal right; it is a
substantive right. To deny the accused of such right would be to deprive him of dueprocess.
In this special civil action for certiorari with preliminary injunction, petitioners
seek to set aside the Order of the Sandiganbayan dated 27 June 1997 denying the
Motion to Quash the information filed against them for violating Sec. 3(g) of R.A.
No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft And Corrupt Practices Act. Petitioners
similarly impugn the Resolution of the Sandiganbayan dated 5 August 1997 which
denied their Motion for Reconsideration thereof.
Pertinent to this case are the following facts:
In 1990, the Davao City Local Automation Project was launched by the citygovernment of Davao. The goal of said project was to make Davao City a leading
center for computer systems and technology development. It also aimed to provide
consultancy and training services and to assist all local government units in
Mindanao set up their respective computer systems.
To implement the project, a Computerization Program Committee, composed of the
following was formed:
Chairman : Atty. Benjamin C. de Guzman, City Administrator
Members : Mr. Jorge Silvosa, Acting City Treasurer
Atty. Victorino Advincula, City Councilor
Mr. Alexis Almendras, City Councilor
Atty. Onofre Francisco, City Legal Officer
Mr. Rufino Ambrocio, Jr., Chief of Internal Control Office
Atty. Mariano Kintanar, COA Resident Auditor. 1
The Committee's duty was to "conduct a thorough study of the different computers
in the market, taking into account the quality and acceptability of the products, the
reputation and track record of the manufacturers and/or their Philippine
distributors, the availability of the replacement parts and accessories in the
Philippines, the availability of service centers in the country that can undertake
preventive maintenance of the computer hardwares to ensure a long and
uninterrupted use and, last but not the least, the capability of the manufacturersand/or Philippine distributors to design and put into place the computer system —
complete with the flow of paperwork, forms to be used and personnel required." 2
Following these guidelines, the Committee recommended the acquisition of
Goldstar computers manufactured by Goldstar Information and Communication,
Ltd., South Korea and exclusively distributed in the Philippines by Systems Plus,
Inc. (SPI).
After obtaining prior clearance from COA Auditor Kintanar, the Committee
proceeded to negotiate with SPI, represented by its President Rodolfo V. Jao and
Executive Vice President Manuel T. Asis, for the acquisition and installation of the
computer hardware and the training of personnel for the Electronic Data-
Processing Center. The total contract cost amounted to P11,056,810.00.
On 5 November 1990, the City Council (Sangguniang Panlungsod) of Davao
unanimously passed Resolution No. 1402 and Ordinance No. 173 approving the
proposed contract for computerization between Davao City and SPI. TheSanggunian, likewise, authorized the City Mayor (petitioner Duterte) to sign the
said contract for and in behalf of Davao City. 3
On the same day, the Sanggunian issued Resolution No. 1403 and Ordinance No.
174, the General Fund Supplemental Budget No. 07 for CY 1990 appropriating
P3,000,000.00 for the city's computerization project.
Given the go-signal, the contract was duly signed by the parties thereto and on 8
November 1990, petitioner City Administrator de Guzman released to SPI PNB
Check No. 65521 in the amount of P1,748,521.58 as downpayment.
7/27/2019 Puboff Cases
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/puboff-cases 2/35
On 27 November 1990, the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao received a letter-
complaint from a "concerned citizen," stating that "some city officials are going to
make a killing" in the transaction. 4 The complaint was docketed as OMB-MIN-90-
0425. However, no action was taken thereon. 5
Thereafter, sometime in February 1991, a complaint docketed as Civil Case No.
20,550-91, was instituted before the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 12
by Dean Pilar Braga, Hospicio C. Conanan, Jr. and Korsung Dabaw Foundation, Inc.
against the petitioners, the City Council, various city officials and SPI for the judicial
declaration of nullity of the aforestated resolutions and ordinances and the
computer contract executed pursuant thereto.
On 22 February 1991, Goldstar, through its agent, Mr. S.Y. Lee sent a proposal to
petitioner Duterte for the cancellation of the computerization contract.
Consequently, on 8 April 1991, the Sanggunian issued Resolution No. 449 and
Ordinance No. 53 accepting Goldstar's offer to cancel the computerization contract
provided the latter return the advance payment of P1,748,521.58 to the City
Treasurer's Office within a period of one month. Petitioner Duterte, as city mayor,
was thus authorized to take the proper steps for the mutual cancellation of the said
contract and to sign all documents relevant thereto. 6
Pursuant to the aforestated authority, on 6 May 1991, petitioner Duterte, in behalf
of Davao City, and SPI mutually rescinded the contract and the downpayment was
duly refunded.
In the meantime, a Special Audit Team of the Commission on Audit was tasked to
conduct an audit of the Davao City Local Automation Project to determine if said
contract conformed to government laws and regulations.
On 31 May 1991, the team submitted its Special Audit Report (SAR) No. 91-05
recommending rescission of the subject contract. A copy of the report was sent to
petitioner Duterte by COA Chairman Eufemio C. Domingo on 7 June 1991. In thelatter's transmittal letter, Chairman Domingo summarized the findings of the
special audit team, thus:
1. The award of the contract for the "Davao City Local AutomationProject" to Systems Plus, Inc., for P11,656,810 was done thru negotiated
contract rather than thru competitive public bidding in violation of
Sections 2 and 8 of PD 526. Moreover, there was no sufficient
appropriation for this particular contract in violation of Sec. 85 of PD
1445.
2. Advance payment of P1.7M was made to Systems Plus, Inc. covering
15% of the contract cost of P11.6M in violation of Sec. 45 of PD 477 and
Sec. 88 of PD 1445.
3. The cost of computer hardware and accessories under contract with
"Systems Plus, Inc. (SPI)" differed from the team's canvass by as much as
1200% or a total of P1.8M.
4. The City had no Information Systems Plan (ISP) prior to the award of
the contract to SPI in direct violation of Malacañang Memo. Order No. 287
and NCC Memo. Circular 89-1 dated June 22, 1989. This omission resulted
in undue disadvantage to the City Government.
5. To remedy the foregoing deficiencies, the team recommends that the
contract with Systems Plus, Inc. be rescinded in view of the questionable
validity due to insufficient funding. Further, the provisions of NCC-MC 89-
1 dated June 22, 1989 regarding procurement and/or installation of
computer hardware/system should be strictly adhered to. 7
The city government, intent on pursuing its computerization plan, decided to
follow the audit team's recommendation and sought the assistance of the NationalComputer Center (NCC). After conducting the necessary studies, the NCC
recommended the acquisition of Philips computers in the amount of
P15,792,150.00. Davao City complied with the NCC's advice and hence, was finally
able to obtain the needed computers.
Subsequently, on 1 August 1991, the Anti-Craft League-Davao City Chapter,
through one Miguel C. Enriquez, filed an unverified complaint with the
Ombudsman-Mindanao against petitioners, the City Treasurer, City Auditor, the
whole city government of Davao and SPI. The League alleged that the respondents,
in entering into the computerization contract, violated R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), PD No. 1445 (Government Auditing Code of the
Philippines), COA circulars and regulations, the Revised Penal Code and other
pertinent penal laws. The case was docketed as OMB-3-91-1768.8
On 9 October 1991, Graft Investigation Officer (GIO) Pepito A. Manriquez of the
Office of the Ombudsman sent a letter 9 to COA Chairman Domingo requesting the
Special Audit Team to submit their joint affidavit to substantiate the complaint in
compliance with Section 4, par. (a) of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the
Ombudsman (A.O. No. 07).
On 14 October 1991, Judge Paul T. Arcangel, issued an Order dismissing Civil Case
No. 20,550-91. The dispositive portion reads, thus:
7/27/2019 Puboff Cases
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/puboff-cases 3/35
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, this case is hereby dismissed on
the ground of prematurity and that it has become moot and academic
with the mutual cancellation of the contract. The other claims of the
parties are hereby denied. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED. 10
On 12 November 1991, Graft Investigator Manriquez issued an order in OMB-3-91-1768 directing petitioners, Jorge Silvosa (City Treasurer), Mariano Kintanar (City
Auditor) and Manuel T. Asis of SPI to:
. . . file in ten (10) days (1) their respective verified point-by-point
comment under oath upon every allegation of the complaint in Civil Case
No. 20,550-91 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 12, Davao City
"Dean Pilar C. Braga, et al. vs. Hon. Rodrigo Duterte," for Judicial
Declaration of Nullity and Illegality of City Council of Davao Resolutions
and Ordinances, and the Computer Contract executed Pursuant Thereto,
for Recovery of Sum of Money, Professional Fees and Costs — with
Injunctive Relief, including the Issuance of a Restraining Order and/or a
Writ of Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction in which they filed a motion to
dismiss, not an answer and (2) the respective comments, also under oath,on the Special Audit Report No. 91-05, a copy of which is attached. 11
On 4 December 1991, the Ombudsman received the affidavits of the Special Audit
Team but failed to furnish petitioners copies thereof.
On 18 February 1992, petitioners submitted a manifestation adopting the
comments filed by their co-respondents Jorge Silvosa and Mariano Kintanar dated
25 November 1991 and 17 January 1992, respectively.
Four years after, or on 22 February 1996, petitioners received a copy of a
Memorandum prepared by Special Prosecution Officer I, Lemuel M. De Guzman
dated 8 February 1996 addressed to Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto regardingOMB-MIN-90-0425 and OMB-3-91-1768. Prosecutor De Guzman recommended
that the charges of malversation, violation of Sec. 3(e), R.A. No. 3019 and Art. 177,
Revised Penal Code against petitioners and their co-respondents be dismissed. He
opined that any issue pertaining to unwarranted benefits or injury to the
government and malversation were rendered moot and academic by the mutual
rescission of the subject contract before the COA submitted its findings (SAR No.
91-05) or before the disbursement was disallowed. However, Prosecutor De
Guzman recommended that petitioners be charged under Sec. 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019
"for having entered into a contract manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the
government, the elements of profit, unwarranted benefits or loss to government
being immaterial."12
Accordingly, the following information dated 8 February 1996 was filed against
petitioners before the Sandiganbayan (docketed as Criminal Case No. 23193):
That on or about November 5, 1990, in the City of Davao, Philippines, andwithin the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
both public officers, accused Rodrigo R. Duterte being then the City Mayor
and accused Benjamin C. De Guzman being then the City Administrator of
Davao City, committing the crime herein charged in relation to, while in
the performance and taking advantage of their official functions, and
conspiring and confederating with each other, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and criminally enter into a negotiated contract for the
purchase of computer hardware and accessories with the Systems Plus,
Incorporated for and in consideration of the amount of PESOS: ELEVEN
MILLION SIX HUNDRED FIFTY-SIX THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED TEN
(P11,656,810.00), which contract is manifestly and grossly
disadvantageous to the government, said accused knowing fully-well that
the said acquisition cost has been overpriced by as much as twelve
hundred (1200%) percent and without subjecting said acquisition to the
required public bidding.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 13
On 27 February 1996, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration and on 29
March 1996, a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration on the following grounds:
1. Petitioners were deprived of their right to a preliminary investigation,
due process and the speedy disposition of their case;
2. Petitioner Duterte acted in good faith and was clothed with authority to
enter into the subject contract;
3. There is no contract manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the
government since the subject contract has been duly rescinded.
On 19 March 1996, the Ombudsman issued a Resolution denying petitioners'
motion for reconsideration.
On 18 June 1997, petitioners filed a Motion to Quash which was denied by the
Sandiganbayan in its Order dated 27 June 1997. The Sandiganbayan ruled:
It appears, however, that the accused were able to file motions for the
reconsideration of the Resolution authorizing the filing of the Information
herein with the Ombudsman in Manila. This would mean, therefore, that
whatever decision which might have occurred with respect to thepreliminary investigation would have been remedied by the motion for
7/27/2019 Puboff Cases
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/puboff-cases 4/35
reconsideration in the sense that whatever the accused had to say in their
behalf, they were able to do in that motion for reconsideration.
Considering the denial thereof by the Office of the Ombudsman, the Court does not believe itself empowered to authorize a reinvestigation on the
ground of an inadequacy of the basic preliminary investigation nor with
respect to a dispute as to the proper appreciation by the prosecution of
the evidence at that time.
In view hereof, upon further representation by Atty. Medialdea that he
represents not only Mayor Duterte but City Administrator de Guzman as
well, upon his commitment, the arraignment hereof is now set for July 25,
1997 at 8:00 o'clock in the morning. 14
On 15 July 1997, petitioners moved for reconsideration of the above order but the
same was denied by the Sandiganbayan for lack of merit in its Resolution dated 5
August 1997. 15
Hence, the present recourse.
Petitioners allege that:
THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN
DENYING PETITIONERS' MOTION TO QUASH AND MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION, CONSIDERING THAT:
A
(1) PETITIONERS WERE EFFECTIVELY DEPRIVED OF
THEIR RIGHT TO A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
PURSUANT TO SEC. 4, RULE II OF ADMINISTRATIVE
ORDER NO. 07 (RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN); AND
(2) ASSUMING THAT A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
WAS PROPERLY CONDUCTED, THERE WAS AN
INORDINATE DELAY IN TERMINATING THE SAME
THEREBY DEPRIVING THEM OF THEIR RIGHT TO DUE
PROCESS AND SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF THE CASE.
B
THERE IS NO SUFFICIENT BASIS, IN FACT AND IN LAW, TO CHARGE
PETITIONERS DUTERTE AND DE GUZMAN OF VIOLATING SEC. 3 (G) OF
R.A. 3019 IN THAT:
(1) PETITIONER DUTERTE ACTED IN GOOD FAITH
AND WAS CLOTHED WITH FULL LEGAL AUTHORITY
FROM THE CITY COUNCIL TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT WITH SYSTEMS PLUS, INC.;
(2) THERE IS NO CONTRACT MANIFESTLY AND
GROSSLY DISADVANTAGEOUS TO THE GOVERNMENT
TO SPEAK OF AS THE SAME HAS BEEN RESCINDED
AND NO DAMAGE WAS SUFFERED BY THE CITY
GOVERNMENT;
(3) ASSUMING THAT THE CONTRACT WAS NOT
RESCINDED, THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS
MANIFESTLY AND GROSSLY DISADVANTAGEOUS TO
THE GOVERNMENT. 16
On 4 September 1997, the Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoiningthe Sandiganbayan from further proceeding with Criminal Case No. 23193.
The Court finds the petition meritorious.
I
We have judiciously studied the case records and we find that the preliminary
investigation of the charges against petitioners has been conducted not in the
manner laid down in Administrative Order No. 07.
In the 12 November 1991 Order of Graft Investigator Manriquez, petitioners were
merely directed to submit a point-by-point comment under oath on the allegations
in Civil Case No. 20,550-91 and on SAR No. 91-05. The said orderwas not accompanied by a single affidavit of any person charging petitioners of any
offense as required by law. 17 They were just required to comment upon the
allegations in Civil Case No. 20,550-91 of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City
which had earlier been dismissed and on the COA Special Audit Report. Petitioners
had no inkling that they were being subjected to a preliminary investigation as in
fact there was no indication in the order that a preliminary investigation was being
conducted. If Graft Investigator Manriquez had intended merely to adopt the
allegations of the plaintiffs in the civil case or the Special Audit Report (whose
recommendation for the cancellation of the contract in question had been complied
with) as his bases for criminal prosecution, then the procedure was plainly
7/27/2019 Puboff Cases
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/puboff-cases 5/35
anomalous and highly irregular. As a consequence, petitioners' constitutional right
to due process was violated.
Sections (2) and (4), Rule II of Administrative Order No. 07 (Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman) provide:
Sec. 2. Evaluation. — Upon evaluating the complaint, the investigating
officer shall recommend whether or not it may be:
a) dismissed outright for want of palpable merit;
b) referred to respondent for comment;
c) endorsed to the proper government office or agency which has
jurisdiction over the case;
d) forwarded to the appropriate office or official for fact-finding
investigation;
e) referred for administrative adjudication; or
f) subjected to a preliminary investigation
xxx xxx xxx
Sec. 4. Procedure. — The preliminary investigation of cases falling under
the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and Regional Trial Courts shall beconducted in the manner prescribed in Section 3, Rule 112 of the Rules of
Court, subject to the following provisions:
a) If the complaint is not under oath or is based only on official reports,
the investigating officer shall require the complainant or supporting
witnesses to execute affidavits to substantiate the complaints.
b) After such affidavits have been secured, the investigating officer shall
issue an order, attaching thereto a copy of the affidavits and other
supporting documents, directing the respondent to submit, within ten
(10) days from receipt thereof, his counter-affidavits and controverting
evidence with proof of service thereof on the complainant. The
complainant may file reply affidavits within ten (10) days after service of
the counter-affidavits.
c) If the respondent does not file a counter-affidavit, the investigating
officer may consider the comment filed by him, if any, as his answer to the
complaint. In any event, the respondent shall have access to the evidence
on record.
d) No motion to dismiss shall be allowed except for lack of jurisdiction.Neither may a motion for a bill of particulars be entertained. If
respondent desires any matter in the complainant's affidavit to be
clarified, the particularization thereof may be done at the time of
clarificatory questioning in the manner provided in paragraph (f) of this
section.
e) If the respondent cannot be served with the order mentioned in
paragraph 6 hereof, or having been served, does not comply therewith,
the complaint shall be deemed submitted for resolution on the basis of
the evidence on record.
f) If, after the filing of the requisite affidavits and their supporting
evidences, there are facts material to the case which the investigating
officer may need to be clarified on, he may conduct a clarificatory hearing
during which the parties shall be afforded the opportunity to be present
but without the right to examine or cross-examine the witness being
questioned. Where the appearance of the parties or witnesses isimpracticable, the clarificatory questioning may be conducted in writing,
whereby the questions desired to be asked by the investigating officer or
a party shall be reduced into writing and served on the witness concernedwho shall be required to answer the same in writing and under oath.
g) Upon the termination of the preliminary investigation, the investigating
officer shall forward the records of the case together with his resolution
to the designated authorities for their appropriate action thereon.
No information may be filed and no complaint may be dismissed without the written authority or approval of the Ombudsman in cases falling
within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, or the proper Deputy
Ombudsman in all other cases.
In what passes off as application of the foregoing rules, all that petitioners were
asked to do was merely to file their comment upon every allegation of the
complaint in Civil Case No. 20,550-91 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and on the
COA Special Audit Report. The comment referred to in Section 2(b) Rule II, of A.O.
No. 07 is not part of or is equivalent to the preliminary investigation contemplated
in Sec. 4, Rule II, of the same Administrative Order. A plain reading of Sec. 2 would
convey the idea that upon evaluation of the complaint, the investigating officer may
recommend its outright dismissal for palpable want of merit; otherwise, or if the
complaint appears to have some merit, the investigator may recommend action
under any of those enumerated from (b) to (f), that is, the investigator may
recommend that the complaint be: referred to respondent for comment, or
7/27/2019 Puboff Cases
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/puboff-cases 6/35
endorsed to the proper government office or agency which has jurisdiction over
the case; or forwarded to the appropriate office or official for fact-finding
investigation; or referred for administrative adjudication; or subjected to
preliminary investigation. Now, if the investigator opts to recommend the filing of a
comment by the respondent, it is presumably because he needs more facts and
information for further evaluation of the merits of the complaint. That being done,
the investigating officer shall again recommend any one of the actions enumerated
in Section 2, which include the conduct of a preliminary investigation.
A preliminary investigation, on the other hand, takes on an adversarial quality and
an entirely different procedure comes into play. This must be so because the
purpose of a preliminary investigation or a previous inquiry of some kind, before
an accused person is placed on trial, is to secure the innocent against hasty,
malicious and oppressive prosecution, and to protect him from an open and public
accusation of a crime, from the trouble, expenses and anxiety of public trial. 18 It is
also intended to protect the state from having to conduct useless and expensive
trials. 19 While the right is s tatutory rather than constitutional in its fundament, it is
a component part of due process in criminal justice. The right to have a preliminary
investigation conducted before being bound over to trial for a criminal offense and
hence formally at risk of incarceration or some other penalty, is not a mere formal
or technical right; it is a substantive right. To deny the accused's claim to a
preliminary investigation would be to deprive him of the full measure of his right todue process. 20
Note that in preliminary investigation, if the complaint is unverified or based only
on official reports (which is the situation obtaining in the case at bar), the
complainant is required to submit affidavits to substantiate the complaint. The
investigating officer, thereafter, shall issue an order, to which copies of thecomplaint-affidavit are attached, requiring the respondent to submit his counter-
affidavits. In the preliminary investigation, what the respondent is required to file
is a counter-affidavit, not a comment. It is only when the respondent fails to file a
counter-affidavit may the investigating officer consider the respondent's comment
as the answer to the complaint. Against the foregoing backdrop, there was a
palpable non-observance by the Office of the Ombudsman of the fundamental
requirements of preliminary investigation.
Apparently, in the case at bar, the investigating officer considered the filing of
petitioner's comment as a substantial compliance with the requirements of a
preliminary investigation. Initially, Graft Investigator Manriquez directed the
members of the Special Audit Team on 9 October 1991 to submit their affidavits
relative to SAR No. 91-05. However, on 12 November 1991, before the affidavits
were submitted, Manriquez required petitioners to submit their respective
comments on the complaint in the civil case and on Special Audit Report (SAR) 91-
05. Even when the required affidavits were filed by the audit team on 4 December
1991, petitioners were still not furnished copies thereof. The Ombudsman
contends that failure to provide petitioners the complaint-affidavits is immaterial
since petitioners were well aware of the existence of the civil complaint and SAR
No. 91-05. We find the Ombudsman's reasoning flawed. The civil complaint and the
COA Special Audit Report are not equivalent to the complaint-affidavits required by
the rules. Moreover, long before petitioners were directed to file their comments,
the civil complaint (Civil Case No. 20,550-91) was rendered moot and academic
and, accordingly, dismissed following the mutual cancellation of the
computerization contract. In SAR No. 91-05, on the other hand, petitioners were
merely advised to rescind the subject contract — which was accomplished even
before the audit report came out. In light of these circumstances, the Court cannot
blame petitioners for being unaware of the proceedings conducted against them.
In Olivas vs. Office of the Ombudsman, 21 this Court, speaking through Justice Vicente
V. Mendoza, emphasized that it is mandatory requirement for the complainant to
submit his affidavit and those of his witnesses before the respondent can be
compelled to submit his counter-affidavits and other supporting documents. Thus:
Even in investigations looking to the prosecution of a party, Rule I, § 3 can
only apply to the general criminal investigation, which in the case at bar
was already conducted by the PCGG. But after the Ombudsman and his
deputies have gathered evidence and their investigation has ceased to be
a general exploratory one and they decide to bring the action against a
party, their proceedings become adversary and Rule II 4(a) then applies.This means that before the respondent can be required to submit
counter-affidavits and other supporting documents, the complaint must
submit his affidavit and those of his witnesses. This is true not only of
prosecutions of graft cases under Rep. Act No. 3019 but also of actions for
the recovery of unexplained wealth under Rep. Act No. 1379, because § 2
of this latter law requires that before a petition is filed there must be a
"previous inquiry similar to preliminary investigation in criminal cases."
Indeed, since a preliminary investigation is designed to screen cases for
trial, only evidence may be considered. While reports and even raw
information may justify the initiation of an investigation, the stage of
preliminary investigation can be held only after sufficient evidence has
been gathered and evaluated warranting the eventual prosecution of thecase in court. As this Court held in Cojuangco, Jr . v . PCGG:
Although such a preliminary investigation is not a trial
and is not intended to usurp the function of the trial
court, it is not a casual affair. The officer conducting the
same investigates or inquires into the facts concerning
the commission of the crime with the end in view of
determining whether or not an information may be
prepared against the accused. Indeed, a preliminary
investigation is in effect a realistic judicial appraisal of
the merits of the case. Sufficient proof of the guilt of the
accused must be adduced so that when the case is
tried, the trial court may not be bound as a matter of
7/27/2019 Puboff Cases
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/puboff-cases 7/35
law to order an acquittal. A preliminary investigation
has then been called a judicial inquiry. It is a judicial
proceeding. An act becomes judicial when there is
opportunity to be heard and for the production and
weighing of evidence, and a decision is rendered
thereof.
II
Compounding the deprivation of petitioners of their right to a preliminary
investigation was the undue and unreasonable delay in the termination of the
irregularly conducted preliminary investigation. Petitioners' manifestation
adopting the comments of their co-respondents was filed on 18 February 1992.
However, it was only on 22 February 1996 or four (4) years later, that petitioners
received a memorandum dated 8 February 1996 submitted by Special Prosecutor
Officer I Lemuel M. De Guzman recommending the filing of information against
them for violation of Sec. 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act). The inordinate delay in the conduct of the "preliminary investigation"
infringed upon their constitutionally guaranteed right to a speedy disposition of
their case. 22 In Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan, 23 we held that an undue delay of close to
three (3) years in the termination of the preliminary investigation in the light of the
circumstances obtaining in that case warranted the dismissal of the case:
We find the long delay in the termination of the preliminary investigationby the Tanodbayan in the instant case to be violative of the constitutional
right of the accused to due process. Substantial adherence to the
requirements of the law governing the conduct of preliminary
investigation, including substantial compliance with the time limitation
prescribed by the law for the resolution of the case by the prosecutor, is
part of the procedural due process constitutionally guaranteed by the
fundamental law. Not only under the broad umbrella of the due process
clause, but under the constitutional guarantee of "speedy disposition" of
cases as embodied in Section 16 of the Bill of Rights (both in the 1973 and
1987 Constitution), the inordinate delay is violative of the petitioner'sconstitutional rights. A delay of close to three (3) years can not be deemed
reasonable or justifiable in the light of the circumstances obtaining in the
case at bar. We are not impressed by the attempt of the Sandiganbayan to
sanitize the long delay by indulging in the speculative assumption that
"the delay may be due to a painstaking and grueling scrutiny by the
Tanodbayan as to whether the evidence presented during the preliminary
investigation merited prosecution of a former high-ranking government
official." In the first place, such a statement suggests a double standard of
treatment, which must be emphatically rejected. Secondly, three out of
the five charges against the petitioner were for his alleged failure to file
his sworn statement of assets and liabilities required by Republic Act No.
3019, which certainly did not involve complicated legal and factual issues
necessitating such "painstaking and grueling scrutiny" as would justify a
delay of almost three years in terminating the preliminary investigation.
The other two charges relating to alleged bribery and alleged giving of
unwarranted benefits to a relative, while presenting more substantial
legal and factual issues, certainly do not warrant or justify the period of
three years, which it took the Tanodbayan to resolve the case.
It has been suggested that the long delay in terminating the preliminary
investigation should not be deemed fatal, for even the complete absence
of a preliminary investigation does not warrant dismissal of the
information. True — but the absence of a preliminary investigation can be
corrected by giving the accused such investigation. But an undue delay in
the conduct of the preliminary investigation can not be corrected, for until
now, man has not yet invented a device for setting back time.
In the recent case of Angchangco, Jr . vs. Ombudsman, 24 the Court upheld
Angchangco's right to the speedy disposition of his case. Angchangco was a sheriff
in the Regional Trial Court of Agusan del Norte and Butuan City. In 1990 criminal
complaints were filed against him which remained pending before the Ombudsman
even after his retirement in 1994. The Court thus ruled:
Here, the Office of the Ombudsman, due to its failure to resolve thecriminal charges against petitioner for more than six years, has
transgressed on the constitutional right of petitioner to due process and
to a speedy disposition of the cases against him, as well as theOmbudsman's own constitutional duty to act promptly on complaints
filed before it. For all these past 6 years, petitioner has remained under a
cloud, and since his retirement in September 1994, he has been deprived
of the fruits of his retirement after serving the government for over 42
years all because of the inaction of respondent Ombudsman. If we wait
any longer, it may be too late for petitioner to receive his retirement
benefits, not to speak of clearing his name. This is a case of plain injustice
which calls for the issuance of the writ prayed for. 25
We are not persuaded by the Ombudsman's argument that the Tatad ruling doesnot apply to the present case which is not politically motivated unlike the former,
pointing out the following findings of the Court in the Tatad decision:
A painstaking review of the facts can not but leave the impression that
political motivations played a vital role in activating and propelling the
prosecutorial process in this case. Firstly, the complaint came to life, as it
were, only after petitioner Tatad had a falling out with President Marcos.
Secondly, departing from established procedures prescribed by law for
preliminary investigation, which require the submission of affidavits and
counter-affidavits by the complainant and the respondent and theirwitnesses, the Tanodbayan referred the complaint to the Presidential
Security Command for fact-finding investigation and report.
7/27/2019 Puboff Cases
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/puboff-cases 8/35
We find such blatant departure from the established procedure as a
dubious, but revealing attempt to involve an office directly under the
President in the prosecutorial process, lending credence to the suspicion
that the prosecution was politically motivated. We cannot emphasize too
strongly that prosecutors should not allow, and should avoid, giving the
impression that their noble office is being used or prostituted, wittingly or
unwittingly, for political ends, or other purposes alien to, or subversive of ,
the basic and fundamental objective observing the interest of justice
evenhandedly, without fear or favor to any and all litigants alike whetherrich or poor, weak or strong, powerless or mighty. Only by strict
adherence to the established procedure may be public's perception of the
impartiality of the prosecutor be enhanced. 26
The Ombudsman endeavored to distinguish the present suit from the Angchangco
case by arguing that in the latter, Angchangco filed several motions for early
resolution, implying that in the case at bar petitioners were not as vigilant in
asserting or protecting their rights.
We disagree. The constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases does not come
into play only when political considerations are involved. The Constitution makes
no such distinction. While political motivation in Tatad may have been a factor in
the undue delay in the termination of the preliminary investigation therein to
justify the invocation of their right to speedy disposition of cases, the particular
facts of each case must be taken into consideration in the grant of the relief sought.
In the Tatad case, we are reminded:
In a number of cases, this Court has not hesitated to grant the so-called
"radical relief" and to spare the accused from undergoing the rigors and
expense of a full-blown trial where it is clear that he has been deprived of
due process of law or other constitutionally guaranteed rights. Of course,
it goes without saying that in the application of the doctrine enunciated in
those cases, particular regard must be taken of the facts and
circumstances peculiar to its case. 27
In Alviso vs. Sandiganbayan, 28 the Court observed that the concept of speedy
disposition of cases "is a relative term and must necessarily be a flexible concept"
and that the factors that may be considered and balanced are the "length of the
delay, the assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused, and the prejudice
caused by the delay."
Petitioners in this case, however, could not have urged the speedy resolution of
their case because they were completely unaware that the investigation against
them was still on-going. Peculiar to this case, we reiterate, is the fact that
petitioners were merely asked to comment, and not file counter-affidavits which isthe proper procedure to follow in a preliminary investigation. After giving their
explanation and after four long years of being in the dark, petitioners, naturally,
had reason to assume that the charges against them had already been dismissed.
On the other hand, the Office of the Ombudsman failed to present any plausible,special or even novel reason which could justify the four-year delay in terminating
its investigation. Its excuse for the delay — the many layers of review that the case
had to undergo and the meticulous scrutiny it had to entail — has lost its novelty
and is no longer appealing, as was the invocation in the Tatad case. The incident
before us does not involve complicated factual and legal issues, specially in view of
the fact that the subject computerization contract had been mutually cancelled by
the parties thereto even before the Anti-Graft League filed its complaint.
The Office of the Ombudsman capitalizes on petitioners' three motions for
extension of time to file comment which it imputed for the delay. However, the
delay was not caused by the motions for extension. The delay occurred after
petitioners filed their comment. Between 1992 to 1996, petitioners were under no
obligation to make any move because there was no preliminary investigation
within the contemplation of Section 4, Rule II of A.O. No. 07 to speak of in the first
place.
III
Finally, under the facts of the case, there is no basis in law or in fact to charge
petitioners for violation of Sec. 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019. To establish probable cause
against the offender for violation of Sec. 3(g), the following elements must be
present: (1) the offender is a public officer; (2) he entered into a contract or
transaction in behalf of the government; and (3) the contract or transaction is
grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government. The second element of
the crime — that the accused public officers entered into a contract in behalf of the
government — is absent. The computerization contract was rescinded on 6 May
1991 before SAR No. 91-05 came out on 31 May 1991 and before the Anti-Graft
League filed its complaint with the Ombudsman on 1 August 1991. Hence, at that
time the Anti-Graft League instituted their complaint and the Ombudsman issued
its Order on 12 November 1991, there was no longer any contract to speak of. Thecontract, after 6 May 1991 became in contemplation of law, non-existent, as if no
contract was ever executed.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED and Criminal Case No.
23193 is hereby DISMISSED. The temporary restraining order issued on 4
September 1997 is made PERMANENT.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Romero and Purisima, JJ., concur.
7/27/2019 Puboff Cases
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/puboff-cases 9/35
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
A.M. No. 2011-04-SC July 5, 2011
Re: Gross Violation of Civil Service Law on the Prohibition Against DualEmployment and Double Compensation in the Government Service
Committed by Mr. Eduardo V. Escala, SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer, SecurityDivision, Office of Administrative Services.
R E S O L U T I O N
PER CURIAM:
Before us is an administrative case which arose from the investigation conducted
by the Office of Administrative Services (OAS) in connection with a complaint
against Mr. Eduardo V. Escala, SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Security Division, OASfor alleged gross violation of the Civil Service Law on the prohibition against dual
employment and double compensation in the government service.
I. Antecedents
Respondent was appointed by the Court as SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Security
Division, OAS on July 14, 2008. His application papers show he has experience and
training as a police officer, having been employed as Chief Inspector of the
Philippine National Police (PNP) Aviation Security Group at the time of his
appointment in the Supreme Court.
Immediately upon his appointment on July 14, 2008, respondent was allowed toassume office and perform his duties, for reasons of exigency in the service
although he has yet to comply with the submission of all the documentary
requirements for his appointment.
During the course of his employment, an anonymous letter1 reached the OAS
reporting the respondent’s gross violation of the Civil Service Law on the
prohibition against dual employment and double compensation in the government
service. The letter alleged that respondent accepted employment, and thusreceived salaries and other benefits, from the Court and also from the PNP of which
he remained an active member.
The OAS’ inquiries on this allegation confirmed that prior to his employment at the
Court, respondent was an active member of the PNP assigned with the Aviation
Security Group – 2nd Police Center for Aviation Security at the Manila Domestic
Airport in Pasay City, with a permanent status and rank of Police Chief Inspector.
Taking the chance to explore his opportunities and skills outside of the police
service, he applied for the position of SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Security
Division, OAS. While employed in the Court and receiving his regular
compensation, he continued to be a bonafide member of the PNP assigned with the
Aviation Security Group with the same status and rank of Police Chief Inspectoruntil the date when he optionally retired on September 30, 2009.
The OAS was also informed that the Internal Affairs Office (IAO) of the PNP is
likewise carrying out a separate probe and investigation on respondent for the
same alleged gross violation of the Civil Service Law.
Considering the seriousness of the matter, respondent was preventively suspended
by the Court pending the results of the IAO’s investigations and the separate
administrative investigation of the OAS.2
In the OAS Memorandum dated May 6, 2011,3 respondent was directed to explain
why he should not be administratively charged with gross dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for violation of the Civil Service Law
on the prohibition against dual employment and double compensation in the
government service.
In his letter-comment dated May 26, 2011,4 respondent submitted to the findings
of the OAS but "humbly implore your magnanimity not to charge him with gross
dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service"5 and offered
the following explanation:
2.1 On January 24, 2008, I applied for optional retirement as a member of the Philippine National Police (PNP). At that time, I was informed that my
application would be effective on March 31, 2008, or a period of three (3)
months from its submission date.
2.2. However, I was advised that, as part of the new policy on optional
retirement, the effectivity of my application would be six (6) months from
date of its submission, or on July 14, 2008.
2.3 Pending the approval of my application for optional retirement, I
applied with the Honorable Supreme Court for the position of Chief
Security Officer. In the course of my interview, I declared that the
Philippine National Police (PNP) had yet to formally approve my
application for optional retirement.
7/27/2019 Puboff Cases
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/puboff-cases 10/35
2.4 Due to the urgent need to fill-in the said vacant position I was hired by
the Honorable Supreme Court as its employee which took effect on July
14, 2008. From then on, and as shall be further discussed hereunder, I
have faithfully discharged my duties and responsibilities in order to
ensure the safety and security of the Honorable Supreme Court, as an
institution; the Honorable Justices; and the court personnel.
2.5 In good faith, and without concealing any material fact from the
Honorable Supreme Court, I submitted all the required documents and
clearances in support of my appointment. At that time, I had no reason to
doubt that my optional retirement would be deemed effective on July 14,
2008-which date actually coincided with the effectivity of my
employment with the Honorable Supreme Court.
2.6 But, then, as fate had it, my application for optional retirement was
not immediately acted upon by the Philippine National Police (PNP)
within the original period of my request. As it is, such application was
bypassed several times, and I was considered optionally retired on
September 30, 2009.
2.7 During the period of almost fourteen (14) months, my employment with the Honorable Supreme Court overlapped with that of the Philippine
National Police (PNP). In the interim, I likewise received my
corresponding monthly salaries from the Philippine National Police(PNP). Not for anything else, I did so for economic reasons.
2.8 Without proffering any justification for may actions, which I now
realize to be totally uncalled for, I was then of the honest impression that I
was still entitled to such monthly salaries pending the approval of my
application for optional retirement which dragged for a longer period of
time with no fault on my part."6
Offering no justification and admitting his fault, and cognizant of the consequences
of his wrong judgment, respondent extends his apologies to the Court and to thePNP. He also informed the OAS that he made arrangements with the PNP for the
return, as in fact he had already returned, the total amount of P 560,982.86
representing his salaries and allowances which he received from the PNP covering
the period July 2008 to September 2009.7 He allegedly made such restitution to
shield the PNP from undue prejudice and to erase the stigma which the incident
has caused upon his person and honor.
Finally, advancing his track record of good performance both in the PNP and the
Court, respondent seeks compassion and prays that the consequences be tempered.
II. Recommendation
In its report to the Court dated June 27, 2011, the OAS presented its findings that
by respondent’s own admission, without offering any justification, his acts have
prejudiced the government. His offer of mitigating circumstance - delay in the
processing of his retirement papers - is unacceptable as records of the PNP will
contradict this. The Service Record issued by the PNP in his favor for retirement
purposes was dated August 26, 2008.8 Likewise, his Certificates of Clearances,
namely: (a) no pending administrative case was dated August 13, 200 89; (b) no
money accountability was dated October 29, 2008 10 and; (c) property
accountability/responsibility was dated October 31, 200811. These documentsclearly show that he only started processing the requirements for his application
for optional retirement when he was already connected with the Court.
The OAS found respondent’s claim that he applied for optional retirement as early
as January 2008 to be merely an afterthought. The OAS further noted that the
vacancy for the position of SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer of the Security Division
existed only after April 30, 2008. Such circumstances lead the OAS to conclude that
respondent first made clear to be appointed to the Court prior to filing his
application for retirement to be sure that he transfers to another government
agency, at the same time enjoying the fruits of his retirement from the PNP. It
should be noted that governing law on retirement of members of the PNP is
different from those with the Court. If t he law is the same, respondent’s
employment with the Court is simply one of "transfer". However, his application toand subsequent appointment to the Court is one of reemployment as evidenced by
his sworn Certificate of Gratuit y12which he submitted to the OAS and where he
clearly indicated that the inclusive dates of employment with the PNP was from
March 29, 1999 to July 13, 2008, and that the cause of his separation was optional
retirement.
The OAS thus found respondent’s indirect claim of good faith unavailing. His
regular receipt of his salaries from the PNP despite presumably exclusively
working with the Court implies a deliberate intent to give unwarranted benefit to
himself and undue prejudice to the government especially so by his regular
submission of monthly/daily time record as a mandatory requirement for inclusion
in the payroll.
The OAS also found that respondent became aware of the approval of his
application for retirement as early as September 30, 2009. Notwithstanding such
knowledge, he did not immediately refund his overpayment, if that was indeed the
case, and that his act of returning his salaries after the period of 20 months was
also a mere afterthought as he did so only because the Court became aware of it
and directed him to explain. Would he have done so if no report of his actuation
was ever brought to the attention of the Court? The lapse of almost 2 years without
him doing so speaks of his intent not to return the same.
Good faith, here understood, is an intangible and abstract quality with no technical
meaning or statutory definition, and it encompasses, among other things, an honest
belief, the absence of malice and the absence of design to defraud or to seek an
7/27/2019 Puboff Cases
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/puboff-cases 11/35
unconscionable advantage. An individual’s personal good faith is a concept of his
own mind and, therefore, may not conclusively be determined by his protestations
alone. It implies honesty of intention, and freedom from knowledge of
circumstances which ought to put the holder upon inquiry. The essence of good
faith lies in an honest belief in the validity of one’s right, ignorance of a superior
claim, and absence of intention to overreach another.13
The OAS found respondent’s actuation even amounts to gross dishonesty. His
receipt of salaries from the PNP despite not rendering any service thereto is a formof deceit. Jurisprudence states that dishonesty implies a "disposition to lie, cheat,
deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or
integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to
defraud, deceive or betray."14
That respondent actually rendered services to the PNP, if any, despite employment
in the Court, is inconsequential. The prohibition against government officials and
employees, whether elected or appointed, from concurrently holding any other
office or position in the government is contained in Section 7, Article IX-B of the
1987 Constitution which provides:
x x x
Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position, no
appointive official shall hold any other office or employment in the Government, or
any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned
or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.
The prohibition on dual employment and double compensation in the government
service is further specified under Sections 1 and 2, Rule XVIII of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing Book V of E.O. No. 292, viz:
Sec. 1. No appointive official shall hold any other office or employment in the
Government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, includinggovernment-owned or controlled corporations with original charters or their
subsidiaries, unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his
position.
Sec. 2. No elective or appointive public officer or employee shall receive additional,
double, or indirect compensation, unless specifically authorized by law, xxxxx.
Moreover, Section 5, Canon III of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel,
specifically provides that:
Sec. 5 The full-time position in the Judiciary of every court personnel shall be thepersonnel’s primary employment. For purposes of this Code, "primary
employment" means the position that consumes the entire normal working hours
of the court personnel and requires the personnel’s exclusive attention in
performing official duties.
Outside employment may be allowed by the head of office provided it complies
with all of the following requirements:
(a) The outside employment is not with a person or entity that practiceslaw before the courts or conducts business with the Judiciary;
(b) The outside employment can be performed outside of normal working
hours and is not incompatible with the performance of the court
personnel’s duties and responsibilities;
(c) The outside employment does not require the practice of law;
Provided, however, that court personnel may render services as
professor, lecturer, or resource person in law schools, review or
continuing education centers or similar institutions;
(d) The outside employment does not require or induce the court
personnel to disclose confidential information acquired while performing
duties; and
(e) The outside employment shall not be with the legislative or executive
branch of government, unless specifically authorized by the Supreme
Court.
Where a conflict of interest exists, may reasonably appear to exist, or where the
outside employment reflects adversely on the integrity of the Judiciary, the court
personnel shall not accept the outside employment.
With the undisputed facts of the case, the OAS considers that there is sufficient
evidence to support a finding that respondent is liable for gross dishonesty andconduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. His non-disclosure of thematerial fact that he was still employed as an active member of the PNP and
receiving his monthly salaries therein during the period that he is already a Court
employee is considered substantial proof that he tried to cheat/defraud both the
PNP and the Court. This is an affront to the dignity of the Court. Indeed, respondent
has transgressed the Constitution and the Civil Service law on the prohibition on
dual employment and double compensation in the government service.
Thus, after its due investigation, the OAS submitted its report to the Court finding
respondent guilty of the charges and recommending:
7/27/2019 Puboff Cases
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/puboff-cases 12/35
a. that Mr. Eduardo V. Escala, SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Security
Division, Office of Administrative Services, be held liable for gross
dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for
not disclosing the fact that despite accepting employment with and
receiving salaries from the Supreme Court, he is still receiving his salaries
and benefits from the Philippine National Police as an active member
thereof; and
b. that he be dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all benefits,except accrued leave credits, if he has any, and with prohibition from
reemployment in any branch, agency or instrumentality of the
government including government-owned or controlled corporations. 15
We fully agree with the findings of the OAS and adopt its recommendations.
All court personnel ought to live up to the strictest standards of honesty and
integrity, considering that their positions primarily involve service to the public.
For knowingly and willfully transgressing the prohibition on dual employment and
double compensation, as well as the Court’s rules for its personnel on conflict of
interest, respondent violated the trust and confidence reposed on him by the Court.
Considering the sensitive and confidential nature of his position, the Court is left with no choice but to declare the respondent guilty of gross dishonesty and
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, which are grave offenses
punished by dismissal.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Eduardo V. Escala, SC Chief Judicial Staff
Officer, Security Division, OAS GUILTY of gross dishonesty and conduct prejudicial
to the best interest of the service, and imposes on him the penalty
of DISMISSAL from the service and forfeiture of all benefits with prejudice to re-
employment in any government agency, including government-owned and
controlled corporations.
SO ORDERED.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DECASTRO
Associate Justice
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
(On leave)DIOSDADO M. PERALTA*
Associate Justice
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice
JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA
Associate Justice
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Associate Justice
7/27/2019 Puboff Cases
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/puboff-cases 13/35
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 122166 March 11, 1998
CRESENTE Y. LLORENTE, JR., petitioner,
vs.SANDIGANBAYAN and LETICIA G. FUERTES, respondents.
PANGANIBAN, J.:
In a prosecution for violation of Section 3[e] of the Anti-Graft Law, that is,
"causing undue injury to any party," the government prosecutors must
prove "actual" injury to the offended party; speculative or incidental
injury is not sufficient.
The Case
Before us is a petition for review of the Decision promulgated on June 23,
1995 and the Resolution promulgated on October 12, 1995 of the
Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 18343, finding Cresente Y. Llorente,
Jr. guilty as charged.
Llorente, then municipal mayor of Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte, was
charged with violation of Sec. 3[e] of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise
known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, under an Information
dated October 22, 1992, textually reproduced as follows: 1
That in or about and during the period of July, 1990 to October,1991, or for sometime subsequent thereto, in the Municipality of
Sindangan, Province of Zamboanga del Norte, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused Cresente Y. Llorente, Jr., a public officer, being then the
Mayor of Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte, in the exercise of his
official and administrative functions, did then and there,
willfully, unlawfully and criminally with evident bad faith refuse
to sign and approve the payrolls and vouchers representing thepayments of the salaries and other emoluments of Leticia G.
Fuertes, without just valid cause and without due process of law,
thereby causing undue injury to the said Leticia G. Fuertes.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Duly arraigned on March 29, 1993, petitioner, with the assistance of
counsel, entered a plea of "NOT GUILTY." 2 After trial in due course, theSandiganbayan3 rendered the assailed Decision, disposing as follows: 4
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused
Mayor Cresente Y. Llorente, Jr. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime of Violation of Section 3(e) of Republic
Act 3019, as amended, and he is hereby sentenced to suffer
imprisonment of SIX (6) YEARS and ONE (1) MONTH, as
minimum to SEVEN (7) YEARS, as maximum; to further suffer
perpetual disqualification from public office; and to pay the
costs.
Respondent Court denied the subsequent motion for reconsideration in
the assailed Resolution thus: 5
WHEREFORE, accused's "Motion for Reconsideration and/or
New Trial" is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. His "Motion for
Marking of Additional Exhibits Cum Offer of DocumentaryExhibits in Support of Motion for Reconsideration and/or New
Trials' is now rendered moot and academic.
Hence, this petition. 6
The Facts
Version of the Prosecution
As found by Respondent Court, the prosecution's version of the facts of
this case is as follows: 7
After appreciating all the evidence on both sides, the following
uncontroverted facts may be gleaned:
1. Accused Mayor Cresente Y. Llorente, Jr., at the time the alleged
act was committed, was the Municipal Mayor of Sindangan,
Zamboanga del Norte.
2. Private [C]omplainant, Leticia C. Fuertes, is the duly appointed
Assistant Municipal Treasurer in the same municipality since
October 18, 1985.
7/27/2019 Puboff Cases
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/puboff-cases 14/35
3. Starting 1986, private complainant was detailed to different
offices, as follows:
(a) Municipality of Katipunan, Zamboanga delNorte — from April, 1986 to August, 1987 as
OIC Municipal Treasurer.
(b) Municipality of Roxas, Zamboanga delNorte — from September, 1987 to March,
1988 as OIC Municipal Treasurer.
(c) Office of the Provincial Treasurer of
Zamboanga del Norte — from April, 1988 to
May, 1988.
(d) Municipality of Piñan, Zamboanga del
Norte — from June, 1988 to June, 1990 as OIC
Municipal Treasurer.
4. In July, 1990, she was returned to her post as Assistant
Municipal Treasurer in the town of Sindangan.
She was not provided with office table and chair nor given any
assignment; neither her daily time record and application for
leave acted upon by the municipal treasure per instruction of
accused Mayor (Exh. "G-2"; "G-3").
5. On July 23, 1990, the Sangguniang Bayan of Sindangan,
Zamboanga del Norte, presided by accused Mayor, passed
Resolution No. SB-214 (Exh. "3"), vehemently objecting to the
assignment of complainant as Assistant Municipal Treasurer of
Sindangan.
6. On March 12, 1991, accused Municipal Mayor received a letter(SB Resolution No. 36) from the Sangguniang Bayan of the
Municipality of Piñan, demanding from the private complainant
return of the amount overpaid to her as salaries (par. 9, p. 2 of
Exh. "4" — counter-affidavit of accused Mayor).
7. On May 22, 1991, private complainant filed a Petition
for Mandamus with Damages (Exh. "E") against the accused
Mayor and the Municipality of Sindangan before Branch II,
Regional Trial Court of Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte
docketed as Special Proceedings No. 45, for the allegedunjustified refusal of Mayor Llorente to sign and/or approve her
payrolls and/or vouchers representing her salaries and other
emoluments as follows: (a) salary for the month of June, 1990 in
the amount of P5,452.00 under disbursement voucher dated
September 5, 1990 (Exh. "H"). Although complainant rendered
services at the municipality of Piñan during this period, she
could not collect her salary there considering that as of that
month, Piñan had already appointed an Assistant Municipal
Treasurer. When she referred the matter to the Provincial
Auditor, she was advised to claim her salary for that month withher mother agency, the Municipality of Sindangan, [(]p. 12, TSN
of August 9, 1994; 10th paragraph of complainant's
Supplemental Affidavit marked Exh. "G"); (b) salary differential
for the period from July 1, 1989 to April 30, 1990 in the total
amount of P19,480.00 under disbursement voucher dated
August, 1990 (Exh. "I"); (c) 13th month pay, cash gift and
clothing allowance under Supplemental Budget No. 5, CY 1990
in the total amount of P7,275 per disbursement voucher dated
December 4, 1990 (Exh. "J"); (d) vacation leave commutation for
the period from October to December 31, 1990 in the total
amount of P16,356.00 per disbursement voucher dated
December 3, 1990 (Exh. "K"); (e) RATA for the months of July,
August and September, 1990, January and February, 1991 in thetotal amount of P5,900.00 (par. 12 & 16 of Exh. "E"); and (f)
salaries for January and February, 1991 in the total amount of
P10,904.00 (par. 17 of Exh. "E").
8. Accused Mayor did not file an answer; instead, he negotiated
for an amicable settlement of the case (p. 24, TSN of August 10,
1994). Indeed, a Compromise Agreement (Exh. "A") dated
August 27, 1991, between the accused and private complainant
was submitted to and approved by the court, hereto quoted as
follows:
COMPROMISE AGREEMENT
That the parties have agreed, as they hereby agree, to settle this
case amicably on the basis of the following terms and conditions,
to wit:
(a) That the respondent Mayor Cresente Y.
Llorente, Jr. binds himself to sign and/or
approve all vouchers and/or payrolls for
unpaid salaries, RATA, Cash-gifts, 13th month
pay, clothing allowance, salary differentials
and other emoluments which the petitioner is
entitled as Assistant Municipal Treasurer of
Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte;
7/27/2019 Puboff Cases
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/puboff-cases 15/35
(b) That the parties herein hereby waive,
renounce and relinquish their other claims
and counter-claims against each other;
(c) That the respondent Mayor Cresente Y.
Llorente Jr. binds himself to sign and/or
approve all subsequent vouchers and payrolls
of the herein petitioner.
9. On August 27, 1991, a Decision (Exh. "B") was rendered by
Judge Wilfredo Ochotorena on the basis of the aforesaid
compromise agreement.
10. For his failure to comply with the terms of the compromise
agreement, private complainant, thru counsel, filed a Motion for
Execution on September 12, 1991. A Writ of Execution (Exh. "C")
was issued by the Court on September 17, 1991, and served [on]
the accused on September 23,1991.
11. As shown in the Sheriff's Return dated November 19, 1991
(Exh. "D"), private complainant was paid her salaries for theperiod from January, 1991 to August, 1991, while the rest of her
salaries including the RATA and other emoluments were not
paid considering the alleged need of a supplemental budget to
be enacted by the Sangguniang Bayan of Sindangan per verbal
allegation of the municipal treasurer.
12. Complainant was not also paid her salaries from July to
December 1990; September and October, 1991; RATA for the
period from July 1990 to June 1994 (admission of accused, pp. 8 -
9, TSN of June 27, 1994, a.m.; Exh. "E"; p. 17, TSN of June 27,1994).
13. Sometime in 1993, accused municipal mayor received from
the Municipality of Piñan, Bill No. 93-08 (Exh. "1"), demanding
from the Municipality of Sindangan settlement of overpayment
to complainant Fuertes in the amount of P50,643.93 per SE
Resolution No. 6 sent on July 23, 1990. The bill was settled by
the Municipality of Sindangan in December, 1993 per
Disbursement Voucher No. 101-9312487 dated December 2,
1993 (Exh. "2").
14. Private complainant was able to receive complete payment
of her claims only on January 4, 1993 in the form of checks all
dated December 29, 1992 (as appearing on Exhs. "H", "I", "J", "K"
of the prosecution, Exhs. "6", "7", "8", of the defense) except her
RATA which was given to her only on July 25, 1994, covering the
period from July 1990 to December, 1993 amounting to
P55,104.00, as evidenced by Disbursement Voucher dated July
25, 1994 (Exh. "5").
Version of the Defense
While admitting some delays in the payment of the complainant's claims,petitioner sought to prove the defense of good faith — that the
withholding of payment was due to her failure to submit the required
money and property clearance and to the Sangguniang Bayan's delayed
enactment of a supplemental budget to cover the claims. He adds that
such delays did not result in "undue injury" to complainant. In his
memorandum, petitioner restates the facts as follows: 8
1. Complainant . . . was appointed assistant municipal treasurer
of Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte on October 18, 1985.
However, starting 1986 until July 1990, or for a period of about
four (4) and one half (1/2) years, she was detailed in other
municipalities and in the Office of the Provincial Treasurer of
Zamboanga del Norte. She returned as assistant treasurer of Sindangan in July 1990. (Decision, pp. 5-6).
2. As complainant had been working in municipalities and
offices other than in Sindangan for more than four (4) years, her
name was removed from the regular payroll of Sindangan, and
payment of past salaries and other emoluments had to be done
by vouchers. When complainant . . . presented her vouchers to
petitioner, the latter required her to submit clearances from the
different offices to which she was detailed, as well as a
certificate of last payment as required by COA regulations (Tsn,
p. 11, Aug. 10, 1994). Instead of submitting the required
documents, Mrs. Fuertes said that "what I did, endorsed my
voucher to the mayor through the municipal treasurer" (Tsn, p.13, June 27, 1994). The municipal treasurer could not, however,
process the vouchers and certify as to the availability of funds
until after the Sangguniang Bayan had passed a supplemental
budget for the purpose (Exhs. D and 6-c Motion), which came
only in December 1992.
3. Petitioner, in the meanwhile, received on March 12, 1991 SB
Resolution No. 36 from the Municipality of Piñan, demanding
from Mrs. . . . Fuertes the reimbursement of P105,915.00, and
because of this demand, he needed time to verify the matterbefore acting on Mrs. Fuertes' claims (Exh. 4). Mrs. Fuertes
7/27/2019 Puboff Cases
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/puboff-cases 16/35
admitted that she had at the time problems of accountability
with the Municipality of Pinan. She testified.
Q. Counsel now is askingyou, when you went back
to Sindangan there was
[sic] still problems of the
claims either against you
or against the Municipalityof Sindangan by the
municipalities had, [sic] in
their minds, overpaid you?
A. Yes, your Honor, that
was evidence[d] by the bill
of the Municipality of
Pinan to the Municipality
of Sindangan. (Tsn, p. 18,
Aug. 3, 1994).
4. Petitioner also stated that he could not act on complainant'sclaims because she had not submitted the required money and
property accountability clearance from Pinan (Tsn, 11, Aug. 10,
1994) and that at the time the Sangguniang Bayan had not appropriated funds for the purpose. (Tsn, pp. 18, 30, 42-43, Aug.
10, 1994). Nonetheless, petitioner included Mrs. Fuertes' name
in the regular annual budget beginning 1991 (Exhs. 4-b, 4-d, 4-f),
as a result of which she had been since then receiving her
regular monthly salary.
5. On May 21, 1991, Mrs. Fuertes filed a complaint . . . Petitioner
filed his answer to the complaint, alleging as a defense, that
plaintiff did not exhaust administrative remedies. (Annex B, p. 3,
Petition; Exh. 1-Motion). On August 27, 1991, the parties enteredinto a compromise agreement, which the trial court approved
(Exh. B). . . .
6. Upon motion of counsel for Mrs. Fuertes, the trial court issued
a writ of execution of the compromise judgment. However, the
writ of execution was addressed only to petitioner; it was not
served on the municipal Sangguniang Bayan. . . .
Thus, Mrs. Fuertes had been receiving her regular salary from
January, 1991 because petitioner had included her name in the
regular budget beginning 1991, which fact complainant did not
dispute. With respect to her other claims for past services in
other offices, Municipal Treasurer; Mrs. Narcisa Caber, informed
that a supplemental budget for such purpose to be passed by the
Sangguniang Bayan was necessary before she could be paid
thereof. Being the municipal treasurer, Mrs. Caber knew that
without such supplemental budget, payment of Mrs. Fuertes'
other claims could not be made because the law requires that
"disbursements shall be made in accordance with the ordinance
authorizing the annual or supplemental appropriations" (Sec.
346, RA 7160) and that "no money shall be disbursed unless . . .the local treasurer certifies to the availability of funds for the
purpose." (Sec. 344, RA 7160).
7. Petitioner had instructed the municipal budget officer to
prepare the supplemental budget for payment of complainant's
unpaid claims for submission to the Sangguniang [Bayan] for
enactment. (Tsn, pp. 32-33, Aug. 10, 1994). The budget officer,
Mr. Narciso Siasico stated as follows:
1. I am the budget officer for the Municipality
of Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte, a
position I have held since 1981.
xxx xxx xxx
3. Immediately after said mandamus case was
settled through a compromise agreement,
Mayor Llorente instructed me to prepare the
necessary budget proposals for the
deliberation and approval of the Sangguniang
Bayan;
xxx xxx xxx
8. Instead of waiting for the Sangguniang Bayan to enact the
budget or of securing an alias writ of execution to compel the
Sangguniang Bayan to pass the same, Mrs. Fuertes filed a
criminal complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman under
date of October 28, 1991, admitting receipt of her salaries from
January 1991 and saying she had not been paid her other claims
in violation of the compromise judgment. (Exh. F). She had thus
made the Office of the Ombudsman a collecting agency to
compel payment of the judgment obligation.
9. While the budget proposal had been prepared and submitted
to the Sangguniang Bayan for action, it took time for the
Sangguniang Bayan to pass the supplemental budget and for the
7/27/2019 Puboff Cases
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/puboff-cases 17/35
Provincial Board to approve the same. It was only on December
27, 1992 that the municipal treasurer and the municipal
accountant issued a certification of availability of funds for the
purpose. Petitioner approved the vouchers immediately, and in
a period of one week, Mrs. Fuertes was paid all claims, as
evidenced by the prosecution's Exhs. H, I, J and K, which were
the four vouchers of Mrs. Fuertes, . . . .
xxx xxx xxx
11. Petitioner testified that he could not immediately sign or
approve the vouchers of Mrs. Fuertes for the following reasons:
a) The Sangguniang Bayan had not
appropriated the amounts to pay Mrs.
Fuertes. (Tsn, pp. 18, 30, 42-43, Aug. 10,
1994).
b) Municipal Treasurer Caber, to whom Mrs.
Fuertes endorsed her vouchers for
processing, and the Municipal Accountant issued the certificate of availability of funds
only on December 27, 1992 (Tsn, p. 42, Aug.
10, 1994; Exhs. H, I, J and K); and the delay in
the issuance of the certificate of availability of
funds was due to the delay by the Provincial
Board to approve the supplemental budget.
(Tsn, p. 43, Aug. 10, 1994).
[c]) He received on March 12, 1991 a demand
from the Municipality of Pinan, Zamboangadel Norte, where Mrs. Fuertes last worked,
for the reimbursement of P105,915.00, and
the matter had to be clarified first. (Exh. 4).Mrs. Fuertes admitted that she had some
problem of accountability with the
Municipality of Pinan. (Tsn, p. 18, 1994). It
took time before this matter could be clarified
by the Municipality of Pinan reducing its
claim to P50,647.093 and the Municipality of
Sindangan paying said claim. (Exh. 2;
Decision, p. 9).
[d]) Mrs. Fuertes had not submitted the
required clearance from the Municipality of
Pinan. (Tsn, p. 11, Aug. 10, 1994). He did not
insist on this requirement after the trial court
issued the writ of execution to implement the
compromise judgment. (Tsn, p. 23, Aug. 10,
1994). Nonetheless, in the post audit of Mrs.
Fuertes' accountability, the Commission on
Audit issued a notice of suspension of the
amount of P5,452.00 from Mrs. Fuertes for
her failure to submit: "1. Clearance for money
& property accountability from former office.2. Certification as [sic] last day of service in
former office. 3. Certification of last salary
received & issued by the disbursing officer in
former office, certified by chief accountant
and verified by resident auditor." (Exh. 2-
Motion).
12. The Information dated October 12, 1992 filed against
petitioner alleged that petitioner as mayor did not sign and
approve the vouchers of Mrs. Fuertes for payment of her salaries
and other emoluments from July 1, 1990 to October 1991, which
caused her undue injury. However, the prosecution's Exh. "D",
the sheriff's return dated November 19, 1991, stated that Mrs.Fuertes had received her salary from January 1, 1991 "up to the
present", which meant that even before the information was
filed, she had been paid her regular salaries from January 1,
1991 to October 1991. The supplemental budget to cover
payment of her other claims for past services was passed only in
December 1992 and the municipal treasurer and accountant
issued the certificate of availability of funds only on December
27, 1992, and Mrs. Fuertes got paid of [sic] all her other claims,
including those not claimed in the Information, within one week
therefrom. (Exhs. H, I, J, and K).
xxx xxx xxx
Ruling of the Sandiganbayan
Respondent Court held that the delay or withholding of complainant's
salaries and emoluments was unreasonable and caused complainant
undue injury. Being then the sole breadwinner in their family, the
withholding of her salaries caused her difficulties in meeting her family's
financial obligations like paying for the tuition fees of her four children.
Petitioner's defense that complainant failed to attach the required money
and property clearance to her vouchers was held to be an afterthought
that was brought about, in the first place, by his own failure to issue any
memorandum requiring its submission. That the voucher form listed the
clearance as one of the requirements for its approval had neither been
7/27/2019 Puboff Cases
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/puboff-cases 18/35
brought to complainant's attention nor raised by petitioner as defense in
his answer. In any event, the payment of complainant's salary from
January to November 1991, confirmed by the sheriff's return, showed that
the clearance was not an indispensable requirement, because petitioner
could have acted upon or approved the disbursement even without it. The
alleged lack of a supplemental budget was also rejected, because it was
petitioner's duty as municipal mayor to prepare and submit the
"executive and supplemental budgets" under Sections 318, 320, and 444
(3)(ii) of the Local Government Code, 9 and the complainant's claims asassistant municipal treasurer, a permanent position included in the
plantilla for calendar year 1990 and 1991, were classified as "current
operating expenditures" for the same calendar years, which were
chargeable against the general funds of the town of Sindangan. Except for
the representation and transportation allowance, Fuertes' claims for
thirteenth month pay, cash gift and clothing allowance were already
covered by Supplemental Budget No. 5 for calendar year 1990.
Petitioner's contention that funds covering complainant's claims were
made available only in December 1992 was unbelievable, considering that
an ordinance enacting a supplemental budget takes effect upon its
approval or on the date fixed therein under Sec. 320 of the Local
Government Code.
The Sandiganbayan also ruled that the petitioner's evident bad faith was
the direct and proximate cause of Fuertes' undue injury. Complainant's
salaries and allowances were withheld for no valid or justifiable reasons.
Such delay was intended to harass complainant, because petitioner
wanted to replace her with his political protege whom he eventually
designated as municipal treasurer, bypassing Fuertes who was next in
seniority. Bad faith was further evidenced by petitioner's instructions to
the outgoing municipal treasurer not to give the complaining witness any
work assignment, not to provide her with office table and chair, not to act
on her daily time record and application for leave of absence, instructions
which were confirmed in the municipal treasurer's certification. (Exh. G-
2).
The Issues
In his memorandum, petitioner submits the following issues: 10
1. Could accused be held liable under Sec. 3(e) of R.A. 3019 "in
the discharge of his official administrative duties", a positive act,
when what was imputed to him was failing and refusing to sign
and/or approve the vouchers of Mr[s]. Fuertes on time or by
"inaction on his obligation under the compromise agreement"
(ibid ., p. 19), a passive act? Did not the act come under Sec. 3(f)
of R.A. 3019, of [sic] which accused was not charged with?
2. Assuming, arguendo, that his failure and refusal to
immediately sign and approve the vouchers of Mrs. Fuertes
comes [sic] under Sec. 3(e), the questions are:
(a) Did not the duty to sign and approve the
same arise only after the Sangguniang Bayan
had passed an appropriations ordinance, and
not before? In other words, was the non-
passage of the appropriation ordinance ajustifiable reason for not signing the
vouchers?
(b) Did Mrs. Fuertes suffer undue injury, as
the term is understood in Sec. 3(e), she
having been paid all her claims?
(c) Did petitioner not act in good faith in
refusing to immediately sign the vouchers
and implement the compromise agreement
until the Sangguniang Bayan had enacted the
appropriation ordinance and until Mrs.Fuertes submitted the clearance from the
Municipality of Pinan, Zamboanga del Norte?
Restated, petitioner claims that the prosecution failed to establish the
elements of undue injury and bad faith. Additionally, petitioner submits
that a violation of Section 3[e] of RA 3019 cannot be committed through
nonfeasance.
The Court's Ruling
The petition is meritorious. After careful review of the evidence on record
and thorough deliberation on the applicable provision of the Anti-Graft
Law, the Court agrees with the solicitor general's assessment that the
prosecution failed to establish the elements of the crime charged.
First Issue: Undue Inquiry
Petitioner was charged with violation of Section 3[e] of R.A. 3019, which
states:
Sec. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. — In addition to acts
or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law,
the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any publicofficer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
7/27/2019 Puboff Cases
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/puboff-cases 19/35
xxx xxx xxx
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the
Government, or giving any private party any unwarrantedbenefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official,
administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality,
evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision
shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government
corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits orother concessions.
To hold a person liable under this section, the concurrence of the
following elements must be established beyond reasonable doubt by the
prosecution:
(1) that the accused is a public officer or a private person
charged in conspiracy with the former;
(2) that said public officer commits the prohibited acts during
the performance of his or her official duties or in relation to his
or her public positions;
(3) that he or she causes undue injury to any party, whether the
government or a private party; and
(4) that the public officer has acted with manifest partiality,
evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.11
The solicitor general, in his manifestation, 12 points out that "undue
injury" requires proof of actual injury or damage, citing our ruling
in Alejandro vs. People 13 and Jacinto vs. Sandiganbayan. 14 Inasmuch as
complainant was actually paid all her claims, there was thus no "undue
injury" established.
This point is well-taken. Unlike in actions for torts, undue injury in Sec.
3[e] cannot be presumed even after a wrong or a violation of a right has
been established. Its existence must be proven as one of the elements of
the crime. In fact, the causing of undue injury or the giving of any
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference through manifest
partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence constitutes
the very act punished under this section. Thus, it is required that the
undue injury be specified, quantified and proven to the point of moral
certainty.
In jurisprudence, "undue injury" is consistently interpreted as "actual
damage." Undue has been defined as "more than necessary, not proper,
[or] illegal;" and injury as "any wrong or damage done to another, either
in his person, rights, reputation or property[; that is, the] invasion of any
legally protected interest of another." Actual damage, in the context of
these definitions, is akin to that in civil law. 15
In turn, actual or compensatory damages is defined by Article 2199 of the
Civil Code as follows:
Art. 2199. Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is
entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary
loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. Such compensation
is referred to as actual or compensatory damages.
Fundamental in the law on damages is that one injured by a breach of a
contract, or by a wrongful or negligent act or omission shall have a fair and
just compensation commensurate to the loss sustained as a consequence
of the defendant's act. Actual pecuniary compensation is awarded as a
general rule, except where the circumstances warrant the allowance of
other kinds of damages.16
Actual damages are primarily intended tosimply make good or replace the loss caused by the wrong. 17
Furthermore, damages must not only be capable of proof, but must be
actually proven with a reasonable degree of certainty. They cannot be
based on flimsy and non-substantial evidence or upon speculation,
conjecture or guesswork. 18 They cannot include speculative damages
which are too remote to be included in an accurate estimate of the loss or
injury.
In this case, the complainant testified that her salary and allowance forthe period beginning July 1990 were withheld, and that her family
underwent financial difficulty which resulted from the delay in the
satisfaction of her claims. 19 As regards her money claim, payment of hersalaries from January 1991 until November 19, 1991 was evidenced by
the Sheriffs Return dated November 19, 1991 (exh. D). She also admitted
having been issued a check on January 4, 1994 to cover her salary from
June 1 to June 30, 1990; her salary differential from July 1, 1989 to April
30, 1990; her thirteenth-month pay; her cash gift; and her clothing
allowances. Respondent Court found that all her monetary claims were
satisfied. After she fully received her monetary claims, their is no longer
any basis for compensatory damages or undue injury, their being nothing
more to compensate.
Complainant's testimony regarding her family's financial stress was
inadequate and largely speculative. Without giving specific details, she
7/27/2019 Puboff Cases
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/puboff-cases 20/35
made only vague references to the fact that her four children were all
going to school and that she was the breadwinner in the family. She,
however, did not say that she was unable to pay their tuition fees and the
specific damage brought by such nonpayment. The fact that the "injury" to
her family was unspecified or unquantified does not satisfy the element of
undue injury, as akin to actual damages. As in civil cases, actual damages,
if not supported by evidence on record, cannot be considered. 20
Other than the amount of the withheld salaries and allowances whichwere eventually received, the prosecution failed to specify and to prove
any other loss or damage sustained by the complainant. Respondent
Court insists that complainant suffered by reason of the "long period of
time" that her emoluments were withheld.
This inconvenience, however, is not constitutive of undue injury. In
Jacinto, this Court held that the injury suffered by the complaining
witness, whose salary was eventually released and whose position was
restored in the plantilla, was negligible; undue injury entails damages that
are more than necessary or are excessive, improper or illegal. 21 InAlejandro, the Court held that the hospital employees were not caused
undue injury, as they were in fact paid their salaries. 22
Second Issue: No Evident Bad Faith
In the challenged Decision, Respondent Court found evident bad faith on
the part of the petitioner, holding that, without any valid of justifiable
reason, accused withheld the payment of complainant's salaries and other
benefits for almost two (2) years, demonstrating a clear manifestation of
bad faith. 23 It then brushed aside the petitioner's defenses that
complainant failed to submit money and property clearances for her
vouchers, and that an appropriation by the Sangguniang Bayan was
required before complainant's vouchers could be approved. It said: 24
Secondly, his reliance on the failure of complainant to submit theclearances which were allegedly necessary for the approval of
vouchers is futile in the light of the foregoing circumstances:
xxx xxx xxx
b. The evidence on record shows that complainant's salaries for
the period from January to November 1991 (included as subject
matter in the mandamus case) were duly paid, as confirmed in
the Sheriff's Return dated November 19, 1991 (Exh. "D"). This
means that accused, even without the necessary clearance, could
have acted upon or approved complainant's disbursement
vouchers if he wanted to.
c. It may be true that a clearance is an indispensable
requirement before complainant will be paid of her claims, but
accused could not just hide behind the cloak of the clearance
requirement in order to exculpate himself from liability. As the
approving officer, it was his duty to direct complainant to
submit the same. Moreover, accused could not just set aside the
obligation he voluntarily imposed upon himself when he entered
into a compromise agreement binding himself to sign
complainant's vouchers without any qualification as to theclearance requirement. Perforce, he could have seen to it that
complainant secured the same in order that he could comply
with the said obligation.
xxx xxx xxx
Fourthly, accused's contention that the delay in the release of
complainant's claim could not be attributed to him because the
vouchers were only submitted to him for his signature on
December 24-27, 1992; that the approval of the budget
appropriations/resolutions depends on the Sangguniang Bayan,
Budget Officer and the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, is unavailing.
As revealed in the alleged newly discovered evidence
themselves, particularly . . . SB Res. No. 202 and AppropriationOrdinance No. 035, both dated May 21, 1990 (Exh. "5-a"-
Motion), the Sangguniang Bayan appropriated a budget of P5M
in the General Fund for calendar year 1991 [the Budget Officer
does not approve the budget but assists the Municipal Mayor
and the Sangguniang Bayan in the preparation of the budget
(Sec. 475, Local Government Code of 1991)]. Complainant's
claims consisted of her salaries and other benefits for 1990 and
1991 which were classified as Current Operating Expenditures
chargeable against the General Fund. It is undisputed that she
was holding her position as Assistant Municipal Treasurer in a
permanent capacity (her position was also designated Assistant
Department Head), which was included in the plantilla for
calender years 1990 and 1991 (Exhs. "4-a" & "4-b", Motion). In
Program Appropriation and Obligation by Object (Exhs. "4-c" &
"4-c", Motion), appropriations were made for current operating
expenditures to which complainant's claims properly
appertained. . . . Verily, complainant's claims were covered by
appropriations duly approved by the officials concerned,
signifying that adequate funds were available for the purpose. In
fact, even complainant's claims for her 13th month pay, cash gift
and clothing allowance, subject matter of Disbursement Voucher
marked Exhibit "J" which would need a supplemental budget
was covered by "Supplemental Budget No. 5 for CY 1990 duly
7/27/2019 Puboff Cases
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/puboff-cases 21/35
approved by the authorities concerned" as shown in the voucher
itself. This means that the said claim was already obligated
(funds were already reserved for it) as of calendar year 1990. . . .
It is clear, then, that as regards availability of funds, there was
no obstacle for the release of all the complainant's claims.
The Court disagrees. Respondent Court cannot shift the blame on the
petitioner, when it was the complainant who fai led to submit the required
clearance. This requirement, which the complainant disregarded, waseven printed at the back of the very vouchers sought to be approved. As
assistant municipal treasurer, she ought to know that this is a condition
for the payment of her claims. This clearance is required by Article 443 of
the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Local Government Code of
1991:
Art. 443. Property Clearances — When an employee transfers to
another government office, retires, resigns, is dismissed, or is
separated from the service, he shall be required to secure
supplies or property clearance from the supply officer
concerned, the provincial or city general services officer
concerned, the municipal mayor and the municipal treasurer, or
the punong barangay and the barangay treasurer, as the casemay be. The local chief executive shall prescribe the property
clearance form for this purpose.
For her own failure to submit the required clearance, complainant is not
entirely blameless for the delay in the approval of her claims.
Also, given the lack of corresponding appropriation ordinance and
certification of availability of funds for such purpose, petitioner had the
duty not to sign the vouchers. As chief executive of the municipality,
Llorente could not have approved the voucher for the payment of
complainant's salaries under Sec. 344, Local Government Code of
1991.25
Also, Appropriation Ordinance No. 02026
adding a supplementalbudget for calendar year 1990 was approved on April 10, 1989, or almost
a year before complainant was transferred back to Sindangan. Hence, she
could not have been included therein. SB Resolution No. 202 and
Appropriation Ordinance No. 035, 27 which fixed the municipal budget for
calendar year 1991, was passed only on May 21, 1990, or almost another
year after the transfer took effect. The petitioner's failure to approve the
complainant's vouchers was therefore due to some legal obstacles, 28 and
not entirely without reason. Thus, evident bad faith cannot be completely
imputed to him.
Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence;
it imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and
conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of sworn duty through
some motive or intent or ill will; it partakes of the nature of
fraud. (Spiegel v. Beacon Participations, 8 NE 2nd Series, 895,
1007). It contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating
with furtive design or some motive of self interest or ill will for
ulterior purposes (Air France v. Carrascoso, 18 SCRA 155, 166-
167). Evident bad faith connotes a manifest deliberate intent on
the part of the accused to do wrong or cause damage. 29
In Jacinto, evident bad faith was not appreciated because the actions
taken by the accused were not entirely without rhyme or reason; he
refused to release the complainant's salary because the latter failed to
submit her daily time record; he refused to approve her sick-leave
application because he found out that she did not suffer any illness; and
he removed her name from the plantilla because she was moonlighting
during office hours. Such actions were measures taken by a superior
against an erring employee who studiously ignored, if not defied, his
authority. 30
In Alejandro, evident bad faith was ruled out, because the accused gave
his approval to the questioned disbursement after relying on the
certification of the bookkeeper on the availability of funds for suchdisbursement.31
Third Issue: Interpretation of Causing
The Court does not completely agree with petitioner's assertion that the
imputed act does not fall under Sec. 3[e] which, according to him, requires
a positive act — a malfeasance or misfeasance. Causing means "to be the
cause or occasion of, the effect as an agent, to bring into existence, to
make or to induce, to compel." 32 Causing is, therefore, not limited to
positive acts only. Even passive acts or inaction may cause undue injury.
What is essential is that undue injury, which is quantifiable and
demonstrable, results from the questioned official act or inaction.
In this case, the prosecution accused petitioner of failing or refusing to
pay complainant's salaries on time, while Respondent Court convicted
him of unduly delaying the payment of complainant's claims. As already
explained, both acts did not, however, legally result in "undue injury" or
in "giving any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the
discharge of his official, [or] administrative . . . functions." Thus, these acts
are not punishable under Sec. 3[e].
It would appear that petitioner's failure or refusal to act on the
complainant's vouchers, or the delay in his acting on them more properly
falls under Sec. 3[f]:
7/27/2019 Puboff Cases
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/puboff-cases 22/35
(f) Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or request, without
sufficient justification, to act within a reasonable time on any
matter pending before him for the purpose of obtaining, directly
or indirectly, from any person interested in the matter some
pecuniary or material benefit or advantage, or for purpose of
favoring his own interest or giving undue advantage in favor of
or discriminating against any other interested party.
Here, the neglect or refusal to act within a reasonable time is the criminalact, not the causing of undue injury. Thus, its elements are:
1) The offender is a public officer;
2) Said officer has neglected or has refused to act without
sufficient justification after due demand or request has been
made on him;
3) Reasonable time has elapsed from such demand or request
without the public officer having acted on the matter pending
before him; and
4) Such failure to so act is "for the purpose of obtaining, directly
or indirectly, from any person interested in the matter some
pecuniary or material benefit or advantage in favor of an
interested party, or discriminating against another. 33
However, petitioner is not charged with a violation of Sec. 3[f]. Hence,
further disquisition is not proper. Neither may this Court convict
petitioner under Sec. 3[f] without violating his constitutional right to due
process.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. Petitioner is ACQUITTED
of violating Section 3[e] of R.A. 3019, as amended. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, Vitug and Quisumbing, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1 Records, p. 1; the information was signed by Special
Prosecution Officer II Luz L. Quiñones-Marcos of the Office of the
Special Prosecutor.
2 Records, p. 60.
3 First Division is composed of J . Minita Chico-Nazario, ponente;
PJ. Francis E. Garchitorena and J . Jose S. Balajadia, concurring.
4 Rollo, pp. 56-57.
5 Rollo, p. 72.
6 The case was deemed submitted for resolution upon filing of
the memorandum for Respondent Court on December 11, 1997
by the Office of the Ombudsman.
7 Rollo, pp. 39-44.
8 Rollo, pp. 259-266; the memorandum for the petitioner was
signed by Atty. Ruben E. Agpalo.
9 Sec. 318. Preparation of the Budget by the Local Chief Executive.
— Upon receipt of the statements of income and expendituresfrom the treasurer, the budget proposals of the heads of
departments and offices, and estimates of income and budgetary
ceilings from the local finance committee, the local chief
executive shall prepare the executive budget for the ensuing
fiscal year in accordance with the provisions of this Title.
The local chief executive shall submit the said executive budget
to the sanggunian concerned not later than the sixteenth (16th)
of October of the current fiscal year. Failure to submit such
budget on the date prescribed herein shall subject the local chief
executive to such criminal and administrative penalties as
provided for under this Code and other applicable laws.
Sec. 320. Effectivity of Budgets — The ordinance enacting the
annual budget shall take effect at the beginning of the ensuing
calendar year. An ordinance enacting a supplemental budget,
however, shall take effect upon its approval or on the date fixed
therein.
The responsibility for the execution of the annual andsupplemental budgets and the accountability therefor shall be
vested primarily in the local chief executive concerned.
7/27/2019 Puboff Cases
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/puboff-cases 23/35
Sec. 444. The Chief Executive: Powers, Duties, Functions and
Compensation — . . . The municipal mayor shall:
(3) xxx xxx xxx
(ii) Prepare and submit to the sanggunian for approval the
executive and supplemental budgets of the municipality for the
[ensuing] calendar years in the manner provided for under Title
Five, Book II of this Code.
10 Rollo, p. 266.
11 Ponce de Leon vs. Sandiganbayan, 186 SCRA 745, 745, June
25, 1990; Pecho vs. Sandiganbayan, 238 SCRA 116, 128,
November 14, 1994; Jacinto vs. Sandiganbayan, 178 SCRA 254,
259, October 2, 1989; and Medija, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, 218
SCRA 219, 223, January 29, 1993.
12 Rollo, p. 140; the 30-page Manifestation in Lieu of Comment
of the OSG, dated March 6, 1996, was signed by then Solicitor
General Raul I. Goco, Asst. Solicitor General Romeo C. dela Cruzand Solicitor Karl B. Miranda.
13 170 SCRA 400, 405, February 20, 1989.
14 Supra.
15 Pecho vs. Sandiganbayan, supra at p. 133.
16 Art. 2199, Civil Code; Nolledo, Civil Code of the Philippines,
10th ed., Vol. V, p. 927; and Gonzales-Decano, Notes on Torts and
Damages, 1992 ed., pp. 141 and 144.
17 Tolentino, The Civil Code, Vol. V. 1992 ed., pp. 633-634.
18 Ibid .
19 TSN, August 9, 1994, p. 3.
20 Fuentes, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 430, 438,
February 9, 1996; People vs. Fabrigas, 261 SCRA 436, 448,
September 5, 1996.
21 Jacinto vs. Sandiganbayan, supra at p. 259.
22 Alejandro vs. People, supra at p. 405.
23 Rollo, p. 56.
24 Ibid ., pp. 65-68.
25 Sec. 344. Certification on, and Approval of, Vouchers. — No
money shall be disbursed unless the local budget officer certifies
to the existence of appropriation that has been legally made for
the purpose, the local accountant has obligated said
appropriation, and the local treasurer certifies to the availability
of funds for the purpose. Vouchers and payrolls shall be certified
to and approved by the head of the department or office who has
administrative control of the fund concerned, as to validity,
propriety, and legality of the claim involved. Except in cases of
disbursements involving regularly recurring administrative
expenses such as payrolls for regular or permanent employees, .
. . . approval of the disbursement voucher by the local chief
executive himself shall be required whenever local funds aredisbursed.
xxx xxx xxx
26 Records, p. 219.
27 Records, pp. 322-323.
28 Baldivia vs. Lota, 107 Phil. 1099, 1103 [1960]; and Discanso
vs. Gatmaytan, 109 Phil 816, 920-921 [1960].
29 Marcelo vs. Sandiganbayan, 185 SCRA 346, 349, May 14,
1990.
30 Jacinto vs. Sandiganbayan, supra at p. 260.
31 Alejandro vs. Sandiganbayan, supra at p. 405.
32 Pecho vs. Sandiganbayan, supra, p. 135.
33 Coronada vs. Sandiganbayan, 225 SCRA 406, 409-410, August
18, 1993; and Nessia vs. Fermin, 220 SCRA 615, 621-622, March
30, 1993.
7/27/2019 Puboff Cases
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/puboff-cases 24/35
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. Nos. 159017-18 March 9, 2011
PAULINO S. ASILO, JR., Petitioner,
vs.THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and Spouses VISITACION AND CESAR C.
BOMBASI, Respondents.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
G.R. No. 159059
VICTORIA BUETA VDA. DE COMENDADOR, IN REPRESENTATION OFDEMETRIO T. COMENDADOR,Petitioner,
vs.
VISITACION C. BOMBASI AND CESAR C. BOMBASI, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
PEREZ, J.:
At bench are appeals by certiorari1 from the Decision2 of the Fourth Division of the
Sandiganbayan; (1) finding Demetrio T. Comendador3 (Mayor Comendador) and
Paulino S. Asilo, Jr.4 guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sec. 3(e) of
Republic Act No. 3019; (2) dismissing the cases against accused Alberto S.
Angeles;5 (3) ordering the defendants Municipality of Nagcarlan, Laguna, Demetrio
T. Comendador and Paulino S. Asilo, Jr. to pay the plaintiffs now respondents
Visitacion C. Bombasi (Visitacion) and Cesar C. Bombasi damages; and (4)
dismissing the cases against the spouses Alida and Teddy Coroza6 and Benita and
Isagani Coronado.7
The factual antecedents of the case are:
On 15 March 1978, Private Respondent Visitacion’s late mother Marciana Vda. De
Coronado (Vda. De Coronado) and the Municipality of Nagcarlan, Laguna
(represented by the then Municipal Mayor Crisostomo P. Manalang) entered into a
lease contract whereby the Municipality allowed the use and enjoyment of
property comprising of a lot and a store located at the corner of Coronado and E.
Fernandez Sts. at Poblacion, Nagcarlan, Laguna, in favor of the respondent’s motherfor a period of twenty (20) years beginning on 15 March 1978 until 15 March 1998,
extendible for another 20 years.8
The lease contract provided that the late Vda. De Coronado could build a firewall on
her rented property which must be at least as high as the store; and in case of
modification of the public market, she or her heir/s would be given preferential
rights.
Visitacion took over the store when her mother died sometime in 1984.9 From then
on up to January 1993, Visitacion secured the yearly Mayor’s permits.10
Sometime in 1986, a fire razed the public market of Nagcarlan. Upon Visitacion’s
request for inspection on 15 May 1986, District Engineer Marcelino B. Gorospe
(Engineer Gorospe) of the then Ministry of Public Works and Highways,11 Regional
Office No. IV-A, found that the store of Visitacion remained intact and stood strong.
This finding of Engineer Gorospe was contested by the Municipality of Nagcarlan.
The store of Visitacion continued to operate after the fire until 15 October 1993.
On 1 September 1993, Visitacion received a letter12 from Mayor Comendador
directing her to demolish her store within five (5) days from notice. Attached to the
letter were copies of Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 15613dated 30 August
1993 and a Memorandum issued by Asst. Provincial Prosecutor Marianito
Sasondoncillo of Laguna.
The relevant provisos of the Resolution No. 156 states that:
NOW THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, as it hereby resolved to authorize Hon.
Demetrio T. Comendador to enforce and o rder the Coronado’s to demolish the
building constructed on the space previously rented to them in order to give way
for the construction of a new municipal market building.
RESOLVED FURTHER, to authorize Demetrio T. Comendador, Honorable Mayor of
Nagcarlan to file an Unlawful Detainer Case with damages for the expenses
incurred due to the delay in the completion of the project if the Coronado’s
continuously resists the order.
On 3 September 1993, Visitacion wrote a reply letter to Mayor Comendador saying
that: (1) the lease contract was still existing and legally binding; (2) she was willing
to vacate the store as long as same place and area would be given to her in the new
public market; and (3) in case her proposals are not acceptable to Mayor
Comendador, for the latter to just file an unlawful detainer case against her
pursuant to Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 156. Pertinent portions of the letter
read:
x x x With all due respect to the resolution of the Municipal Council and the opinion
rendered by the Laguna Asst. Provincial Prosecutor, it is my considered view,however, arrived at after consultation with my legal counsel, that our existing lease
7/27/2019 Puboff Cases
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/puboff-cases 25/35
contract is still legally binding and in full force and effect. Lest I appear to be
defiant, let me reiterate to you and the council that we are willing to vacate the said
building provided that a new contract is executed granting to us the same space or
lot and the same area. I believe that our proposal is most reasonable and fair under
the circumstance. If you are not amenable to the said proposal, I concur with the
position taken by the Council for you to file the appropriate action in court for
unlawful detainer to enable our court to finally thresh out our
differences.141avvphi1
On 15 September 1993, Asst. Provincial Prosecutor Florencio Buyser sent a letter
to Visitacion ordering her to vacate the portion of the public market she was
occupying within 15 days from her receipt of the letter; else, a court action will be
filed against her.
On 11 October 1993, the Sangguniang Bayan of Nagcarlan, Laguna issued
Resolution No. 183 authorizing Mayor Comendador to demolish the store being
occupied by Visitacion using legal means. The significant portion of the Resolution
reads:
Kung kaya ang Sangguniang Bayan ay buong pagkakaisang IPINASIYA: Ang
pagbibigay kapangyarihan kay Kgg. Demetrio T. Comendador na ipagiba anganumang istrakturang nagiging sagabal sa mabilis at maayos na pagbabangon ng
pamilihang bayan.15
On 14 October 1993, Municipal Administrator Paulino S. Asilo, Jr. (Asilo) also sent a
letter16 to Visitacion informing her of the impending demolition of her store the
next day. Within the same day, Visitacion wrote a reply lette r17 to Asilo, alleging
that there is no legal right to demolish the store in the absence of a court order and
that the Resolutions did not sanction the demolition of her store but only the filing
of an appropriate unlawful detainer case against her. She further replied that if the
demolition will take place, appropriate administrative, criminal and civil actions
will be filed against Mayor Comendador, Asilo and all persons who will take part in
the demolition.
On 15 October 1993, Mayor Comendador relying on the strength of Sangguniang
Bayan Resolution Nos. 183 and 156 authorized the demolition of the store with
Asilo and Angeles supervising the work.
Engineer Winston Cabrega (Engineer Cabrega), a licensed civil engineer, estimated
the cost of the demolished property as amounting to P437,900.0018
On 19 August 1994, Visitacion, together with her husband Cesar Bombasi (Spouses
Bombasi) filed with the Regional Trial Court of San Pablo City, Laguna a Civil
Case19 for damages with preliminary injunction against the Municipality of
Nagcarlan, Laguna, Mayor Demetrio T. Comendador, Paulino S. Asilo, Jr., and
Alberto S. Angeles. The complaint was soon after amended to include the Spouses
Benita and Isagani Coronado and Spouses Alida and Teddy Coroza as formal
defendants because they were then the occupants of the contested area.
The spouses prayed for the following disposition:
1. RESTRAINING or ENJOINING defendant Municipality and defendant
Municipal Mayor from leasing the premises subject of lease Annex "A"
hereof, part of which is now occupied by PNP Outpost and by the
Municipal Collectors’ Office, and the equivalent adjacent area thereof, and
to cause the removal of said stalls;
2. UPHOLDING the right of plaintiffs to occupy the equivalent corner area
of the leased areas being now assigned to other persons by defendants
Municipality and/or by defendant Municipal Mayor, and to allow plaintiffs
to construct their stalls thereon;
3. MAKING the injunction permanent, after trial;
4. ORDERING defendants to pay plaintiffs, jointly and severally, the
following –
(a) P437,900.00 for loss of building/store and other items
therein;
(b) P200,000.00 for exemplary damages;
(c) P200,000.00 for moral damages;
(d) P30,.00 for attorney’s fees and P700.00 for every attendance
of counsel in court.
5. GRANTING further reliefs upon plaintiffs as justice and equity maywarrant in the premises.20
Spouses Bombasi, thereafter, filed a criminal complaint 21 against Mayor
Comendador, Asilo and Angeles for violation of Sec. 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019
otherwise known as the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act" before the Office of
the Ombudsman. On 22 February 1996, an Information22 against Mayor
Comendador, Asilo and Angeles was filed, which reads:
That on or about October 15, 1993, at Nagcarlan, Laguna, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, all public
officers, accused Demetrio T. Comendador, being then the Municipal Mayor,
accused Paulino S. Asilo, Jr. being then the Municipal Administrator and accused
7/27/2019 Puboff Cases
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/puboff-cases 26/35
Alberto S. Angeles being then the Municipal Planning and Development
Coordinator, all of the Municipality of Nagcarlan, Laguna, committing the crime
herein charged in relation to, while in the performance and taking advantage of
their official functions, conspiring and confederating with each other, and with
evident bad faith, manifest partiality or through gross inexcusable negligence, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully, criminally cause the demolition of a public
market stall leased by the municipal government in favor of one Visitacion
Coronado-Bombasi without legal or justifiable ground therefor, thus, causing
undue injury to the latter in the amount of PESOS: FOUR HUNDRED THIRTY SEVENTHOUSAND AND NINE HUNDRED ONLY (P437,900.00).
Upon their arraignments, all the accused entered their separate pleas of "Not
Guilty."
On 4 March 1997, the Sandiganbayan promulgated a Resolution ordering the
consolidation of Civil Case No. SP-4064 (94)23 with Criminal Case No. 23267
pending before the Third Division pursuant to Section 4, Presidential Decree No.
1606, which pertinently reads:
Any provision of law or Rules of Court to the contrary notwithstanding, the
criminal action and the corresponding civil action for the recovery of civil liability
arising from the offense charged shall at all times be simultaneously instituted
with, and jointly determined in the same proceeding by the Sandiganbayan or the
appropriate courts, the filing of the criminal action being deemed to necessarilycarry with it the filing of the civil action, and no right to reserve the filing of such
civil action separately from the criminal action shall be recognized; Provided,
however, that where the civil action had heretofore been filed separately but
judgment therein has not yet been rendered, and the criminal case is hereafter filed
with the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate court, said civil action shall be
transferred to the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate court as the case may be, for
consolidation and joint determination with the criminal action, otherwise the
separate civil action shall be deemed abandoned.24
During the pendency of the case, Alberto S. Angeles died on 16 November 1997.Accordingly, the counsel of Angeles filed a motion to drop accused Angeles. On 22
September 1999, the Third Division of Sandiganbayan issued an
Order25 DISMISSING the case against Angeles. The germane portion of the Order
reads:
In view of the submission of the death certificate of accused/defendant Alberto S.
Angeles, and there being no objection on the part of the Public Prosecutor, cases
against deceased accused/defendant Angeles only, are hereby DISMISSED.
The death of Mayor Comendador followed on 17 September 2002. As a result, the
counsel of the late Mayor filed on 3 March 2003 a Manifestation before the
Sandiganbayan informing the court of the fact of Mayor Comendador’s death.
On 28 April 2003, the Sandiganbayan rendered a decision, the dispositive portion
of which reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
In Criminal Case No. 23267, the court finds accused Demetrio T. Comendador and
Paulino S. Asilo, Jr. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sec. 3(e) of
Republic Act. No. 3019 as amended, and in the absence of aggravating and
mitigating circumstances, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, said accused
are sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 6 years and 2 months
imprisonment as minimum to 10 years and 1 day as maximum.
The order of the court dated September 22, 1999 dismissing the cases against the
accused Alberto S. Angeles, who died on November 16, 1997 is hereby reiterated.
In Civil Case No. 4064, defendants Municipality of Nagcarlan, Laguna, Demetrio T.
Comendador and Paulino S. Asilo, Jr. are hereby ordered jointly and severally to
pay plaintiff P437,900.00 as actual damages for the destruction of the store;
P100,000.00 as moral damages; P30,000.00 as attorney’s fees, and to pay the cost
of the suit. The prayer for exemplary damages is denied as the court found no
aggravating circumstances in the commission of the crime.
In view of this court’s finding that the defendant spouses Alida and Teddy Coroza
are lawful occupants of the subject market stalls from which they cannot be validly
ejected without just cause, the complaint against them is dismissed. The complaint
against defendant spouses Benita and Isagani Coronado is likewise dismissed, it
appearing that they are similarly situated as the spouses Coroza. Meanwhile,
plaintiff Visitacion Bombasi is given the option to accept market space being given
to her by the municipality, subject to her payment of the appropriate rental and
permit fees.
The prayer for injunctive relief is denied, the same having become moot and
academic.
The compulsory counterclaim of defendant Comendador is likewise denied for lack
of merit .26
Within the same day, Asilo, through his counsel, filed a Motion for
Reconsideration27 of the Decision alleging that there was only an error of judgment
when he complied with and implemented the order of his superior, Mayor
Comendador. He likewise alleged that there is no liability when a public officer
commits in good faith an error of judgment. The Sandiganbayan, on its
Resolution28 dated 21 July 2003 denied the Motion for Reconsideration on the
ground that good faith cannot be argued to support his cause in the face of the
court’s finding that bad faith attended the commission of the offense charged. The
7/27/2019 Puboff Cases
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/puboff-cases 27/35
Court further explained that the invocation of compliance with an order of a
superior is of no moment for the "demolition [order] cannot be described as having
the semblance of legality inasmuch as it was issued without the authority and
therefore the same was patently illegal."29
The counsel for the late Mayor also filed its Motion for Reconsideratio n30 on 12
May 2003 alleging that the death of the late Mayor had totally extinguished both his
criminal and civil liability. The Sandiganbayan on its Resolution 31 granted the
Motion insofar as the extinction of the criminal liability is concerned and deniedthe extinction of the civil liability holding that the civil action is an independent
civil action.
Hence, these Petitions for Review on Certiorari.32
Petitioner Asilo argues that in order to sustain conviction under Sec. 3(e) of
Republic Act No. 3019 or "The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act," the public
officer must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
negligence. He also contended that he and his co-accused acted in good faith in the
demolition of the market and, thereby, no liability was incurred.
On the other hand, Petitioner Victoria argues that the death of Mayor Comendadorprior to the promulgation of the decision extinguished NOT ONLY Mayor
Comendador’s criminal liability but also his civil liability. She also asserted good
faith on the part of the accused public officials when they performed the demolition
of the market stall. Lastly, she contended that assuming arguendo that there was
indeed liability on the part of the accused public officials, the actual amount of
damages being claimed by the Spouses Bombasi has no basis and was not duly
substantiated.
Liability of the accused public officials
under Republic Act No. 3019
Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 provides:
In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law,
the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby
declared to be unlawful:
x x x x
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any
private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge
of his official, administrative or judicial functions throughmanifest partiality,
evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to
officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the
grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.
The elements of the offense are as follows: (1) that the accused are public officersor private persons charged in conspiracy with them; (2) that said public officers
commit the prohibited acts during the performance of their official duties or in
relation to their public positions; (3) that they caused undue injury to any party,
whether the Government or a private party; (4) OR that such injury is caused by
giving unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to the other party; and (5)that the public officers have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad
faithor gross inexcusable negligence.33
We sustain the Sandiganbayan in its finding of criminal and civil liabilities against
petitioner Asilo and petitioner Mayor Comendador as here represented by his
widow Victoria Bueta.
We agree with the Sandiganbayan that it is undisputable that the first two
requisites of the criminal offense were present at the time of the commission of the
complained acts and that, as to the remaining elements, there is sufficient amount
of evidence to establish that there was an undue injury suffered on the part of the
Spouses Bombasi and that the public officials concerned acted with evident bad
faith when they performed the demolition of the market stall.
Causing undue injury to any party, including the government, could only mean
actual injury or damage which must be established by evidence.34
In jurisprudence, "undue injury" is consistently interpreted as "actual." Undue has
been defined as "more than necessary, not proper, [or] illegal;" and injury as "any
wrong or damage done to another, either in his person, rights, reputation or
property [that is, the] invasion of any legally protected interest of another." Actual
damage, in the context of these definitions, is akin to that in civil law.35
It is evident from the records, as correctly observed by the Sandiganbayan, that
Asilo and Mayor Comendador as accused below did not deny that there was indeeddamage caused the Spouses Bombasi on account of the demolition. We affirm the
finding that:
xxx. Clearly, the demolition of plaintiff’s store was carried out without a court
order, and notwithstanding a restraining order which the plaintiff was able to
obtain. The demolition was done in the exercise of official duties which apparently
was attended by evident bad faith, manifest partiality or gross inexcusable
negligence as there is nothing in the two (2) resolutions which gave the herein
accused the authority to demolish plaintiff’s store.
7/27/2019 Puboff Cases
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/puboff-cases 28/35
"Evident bad faith" connotes not only bad judgment but also palpably and patently
fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do moral obliquity or conscious wrongdoing
for some perverse motive or ill will.36 [It] contemplates a state of mind
affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive or self-interest or
ill will or for ulterior purposes.37
It is quite evident in the case at bar that the accused public officials committed bad
faith in performing the demolition.
First, there can be no merit in the contention that respondents’ structure is a public
nuisance. The abatement of a nuisance without judicial proceedings is possible if it
is nuisance per se.38 Nuisance per se is that which is nuisance at all times and under
any circumstance, regardless of location and surroundings.39 In this case, the
market stall cannot be considered as a nuisance per se because as found out by the
Court, the buildings had not been affected by the 1986 fire. This finding was
certified to by Supervising Civil Engineer Wilfredo A. Sambrano of the Laguna
District Engineer Office.40 To quote:
An inspection has been made on the building (a commercial establishment) cited
above and found out the following:
1. It is a two-storey building, sketch of which is attached.
2. It is located within the market site.
3. The building has not been affected by the recent fire.
4. The concrete wall[s] does not even show signs of being exposed to
fire.41
Second, the Sangguniang Bayan resolutions are not enough to justify demolition.
Unlike its predecessor law,42 the present Local Government Code43 does not
expressly provide for the abatement of nuisance.44 And even assuming that thepower to abate nuisance is provided for by the present code, the accused publicofficials were under the facts of this case, still devoid of any power to demolish the
store. A closer look at the contested resolutions reveals that Mayor Comendador
was only authorized to file an unlawful detainer case in case of resistance to obey
the order or to demolish the building using legal means. Clearly, the act of
demolition without legal order in this case was not among those provided by the
resolutions, as indeed, it is a legally impossible provision.
Furthermore, the Municipality of Nagcarlan, Laguna, as represented by the then
Mayor Comendador, was placed in estoppel after it granted yearly business
permit s45 in favor of the Spouses Bombasi. Art. 1431 of the New Civil Code providesthat, through estoppel, an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon
the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person
relying thereon. The representation made by the municipality that the Spouses
Bombasi had the right to continuously operate its store binds the municipality. It is
utterly unjust for the Municipality to receive the benefits of the store operation and
later on claim the illegality of the business.
The bad faith of the petitioners completes the elements of the criminal offense of
violation of Sec. 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019. The same bad faith serves as the
source of the civil liability of Asilo, Angeles, and Mayor Comendador.
It must be noted that when Angeles died on 16 November 1997, a motion to drop
him as an accused was filed by his counsel with no objection on the part of the
prosecution. The Sandiganbayan acted favorably on the motion and issued an
Order dismissing all the cases filed against Angeles. On the other hand, when Mayor
Comendador died and an adverse decision was rendered against him which
resulted in the filing of a motion for reconsideration by Mayor Comendador’s
counsel, the prosecution opposed the Motion specifying the ground that the civil
liability did not arise from delict, hence, survived the death of the accused. The
Sandiganbayan upheld the opposition of the prosecution which disposition was not
appealed.
We note, first off, that the death of Angeles and of Mayor Comendador during the
pendency of the case extinguished their criminal liabilities.
We now hold, as did the Sandiganbayan that the civil liability of Mayor
Comendador survived his death; and that of Angeles could have likewise survived
had it not been for the fact that the resolution of the Sandiganbayan that his death
extinguished the civil liability was not questioned and lapsed into finality.
We laid down the following guidelines in People v. Bayotas:46
Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal
liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. As opined by Justice
Regalado, in this regard, "the death of the accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability and only the civil liability directly arising from and
based solely on the offense committed, i.e., civil liability ex delicto in senso
strictiore."
Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of (the)
accused, if the same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than
delict. Article 1157 of the Civil Code enumerates these other sources of obligation
from which the civil liability may arise as a result of the same act or omission:
a) Law
7/27/2019 Puboff Cases
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/puboff-cases 29/35
b) Contracts
c) Quasi-contracts
d) Acts or omissions punished by law; and
e) Quasi-delicts. (Emphasis ours)
Where the civil liability survives, as explained [above], an action for recovery
therefore may be pursued but only by way of filing a separate civil actio n47 and
subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended.
This separate civil action may be enforced either against the
executor/administrator or the estate of the accused, depending on the source of
obligation upon which the same is based as explained above.
Finally, the private offended party need not fear a forfeiture of his right to file this
separate civil action by prescription, in cases where during the prosecution of thecriminal action and prior to its extinction, the private-offended party instituted
together therewith the civil action. In such case, the statute of limitations on the
civil liability is deemed interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case,
conformably with provisions of Article 1155 of the New Civil Code, which shouldthereby avoid any apprehension on a possible privation of right by prescription.
Upon death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction, the criminal action is
extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused;
the civil action instituted therein for recovery of civil liability ex delicto is ipso facto
extinguished, grounded as it is on the criminal.48
The New Civil Code provisions under the Chapter, Human Relations, were cited by
the prosecution to substantiate its argument that the civil action based therein is an
independent one, thus, will stand despite the death of the accused during the
pendency of the case.
On the other hand, the defense invoked Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1606,as amended by Republic Act No. 8249, in support of its argument that the civil
action was dependent upon the criminal action, thus, was extinguished upon the
death of the accused. The law provides that:
Any provision of law or the Rules of Court to the contrary notwithstanding, the
criminal action and the corresponding civil action for the recovery of civil liability
arising from the offense charged shall at all times be simultaneously instituted
with, and jointly determined in the same proceeding by, the Sandiganbayan, the
filing of the criminal action being deemed to necessarily carry with it the filing of
the civil action, and no right to reserve the filing of such action shall be recognized.(Emphasis ours)
We agree with the prosecution.
Death of Mayor Comendador during the pendency of the case could have
extinguished the civil liability if the same arose directly from the crime committed.However, in this case, the civil liability is based on another source of obligation, the
law on human relations.49 The pertinent articles follow:
Art. 31 of the Civil Code states:
When the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the act or omission
complained of as a felony, such civil action may proceed independently of the
criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter.
And, Art. 32(6) states:
Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly
obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of thefollowing rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for
damages:
(6) The right against deprivation of property without due process of law;
x x x x
In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the defendant's act or
omission constitutes a criminal offense, the aggrieved party has a right to
commence an entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages, and for other
relief. Such civil action shall proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if
the latter be instituted), and may be proved by a preponderance of evidence.
As held in Aberca v. Ver:
It is obvious that the purpose of the above codal provision [Art. 32 of the New Civil
Code] is to provide a sanction to the deeply cherished rights and freedoms
enshrined in the Constitution. Its message is clear; no man may seek to violate
those sacred rights with impunity. x x x .50
Indeed, the basic facts of this case point squarely to the applicability of the law on
human relations. First, the complaint for civil liability was filed way AHEAD of the
information on the Anti-Graft Law. And, the complaint for damages specifically
invoked defendant Mayor Comendador’s violation of plaintiff’s right to due process.
Thus:
x x x x
7/27/2019 Puboff Cases
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/puboff-cases 30/35
In causing or doing the forcible demolition of the store in question, the individual
natural defendants did not only act with grave abuse of authority but usurped a
power which belongs to our courts of justice; such actuations were done with
malice or in bad faith and constitute an invasion of the property rights of
plaintiff(s) without due process of law.
x x x x
The Court is in one with the prosecution that there was a violation of the right to
private property of the Spouses Bombasi. The accused public officials should have
accorded the spouses the due process of law guaranteed by the Constitution and
New Civil Code. The Sangguniang Bayan Resolutions as asserted by the defense will
not, as already shown, justify demolition of the store without court order. This
Court in a number of decisions51 held that even if there is already a writ of
execution, there must still be a need for a special order for the purpose of
demolition issued by the court before the officer in charge can destroy, demolish or
remove improvements over the contested property.52 The pertinent provisions are
the following:
Before the removal of an improvement must take place, there must be a special
order, hearing and reasonable notice to remove. Section 10(d), Rule 39 of the Rules
of Court provides:
(d) Removal of improvements on property subject of execution. – When the
property subject of execution contains improvements constructed or planted by
the judgment obligor or his agent, the officer shall not destroy, demolish or remove
said improvements except upon special order of the court, issued upon motion of
the judgment obligee after due hearing and after the former has failed to remove
the same within a reasonable time fixed by the court.
The above-stated rule is clear and needs no interpretation. If demolition isnecessary, there must be a hearing on the motion filed and with due notices to the
parties for the issuance of a special order of demolition.53
This special need for a court order even if an ejectment case has successfully been
litigated, underscores the independent basis for civil liability, in this case, where no
case was even filed by the municipality.
The requirement of a special order of demolition is based on the rudiments of
justice and fair play. It frowns upon arbitrariness and oppressive conduct in the
execution of an otherwise legitimate act. It is an amplification of the provision of
the Civil Code that every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the
performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe
honesty and good faith.54
Notably, the fact that a separate civil action precisely based on due process
violations was filed even ahead of the criminal case, is complemented by the fact
that the deceased plaintiff Comendador was substituted by his widow, herein
petitioner Victoria who specified in her petition that she has "substituted him as
petitioner in the above captioned case." Section 1, Rule III of the 1985 Rules in
Criminal Procedure mentioned in Bayotas is, therefore, not applicable. Truly, the
Sandiganbayan was correct when it maintained the separate docketing of the civil
and criminal cases before it although their consolidation was erroneously based on
Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1606 which deals with civil liability "arisingfrom the offense charged."
We must, however, correct the amount of damages awarded to the Spouses
Bombasi.
To seek recovery of actual damages, it is necessary to prove the actual amount of
loss with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and on
the best evidence obtainable.55 In this case, the Court finds that the only evidence
presented to prove the actual damages incurred was the itemized list of damaged
and lost items56 prepared by Engineer Cabrega, an engineer commissioned by the
Spouses Bombasi to estimate the costs.
As held by this Court in Marikina Auto Line Transport Corporation v. People of the
Philippines,57
x x x [W]e agree with the contention of petitioners that respondents failed to prove
that the damages to the terrace caused by the incident amounted to P100,000.00.
The only evidence adduced by respondents to prove actual damages claimed by
private respondent were the summary computation of damage made by Engr. Jesus
R. Regal, Jr. amounting to P171,088.46 and the receipt issued by the BB
Construction and Steel Fabricator to private respondent for P35,000.00
representing cost for carpentry works, masonry, welding, and electrical works.
Respondents failed to present Regal to testify on his estimation. In its five-page
decision, the trial court awardedP150,000.00 as actual damages to private
respondent but failed to state the factual basis for such award. Indeed, the trialcourt merely declared in the decretal portion of its decision that the "sum
of P150,000.00 as reasonable compensation sustained by plaintiff for her damaged
apartment." The appellate court, for its part, failed to explain how it arrived at the
amount of P100,000.00 in its three-page decision. Thus, the appellate court merely
declared:
With respect to the civil liability of the appellants, they contend that there was no
urgent necessity to completely demolish the apartment in question considering the
nature of the damages sustained as a result of the accident. Consequently,
appellants continue, the award of P150,000.00 as compensation sustained by theplaintiff-appellee for her damaged apartment is an unconscionable amount.
7/27/2019 Puboff Cases
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/puboff-cases 31/35
Further, in one case,58 this Court held that the amount claimed by the respondent-
claimant’s witness as to the actual amount of damages "should be admitted with
extreme caution considering that, because it was a bare assertion, it should be
supported by independent evidence." The Court further said that whatever claim
the respondent witness would allege must be appreciated in consideration of his
particular self-interest .59 There must still be a need for the examination of the
documentary evidence presented by the claimants to support its claim with regard
to the actual amount of damages.
The price quotation made by Engineer Cabrega presented as an exhibit 60 partakes
of the nature of hearsay evidence considering that the person who issued them was
not presented as a witness.61 Any evidence, whether oral or documentary, is
hearsay if its probative value is not based on the personal knowledge of the witness
but on the knowledge of another person who is not on the witness stand. Hearsay
evidence, whether objected to or not, has no probative value unless the proponent
can show that the evidence falls within the exceptions to the hearsay evidence
rule.62 Further, exhibits do not fall under any of the exceptions provided under
Sections 37 to 47 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
Though there is no sufficient evidence to award the actual damages claimed, this
Court grants temperate damages for P200,000.00 in view of the loss suffered by the
Spouses Bombasi. Temperate damages are awarded in accordance with Art. 2224of the New Civil Code when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been
suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proven with
certainty. The amount of temperate or moderated damages is usually left to the
discretion of the courts but the same should be reasonable, bearing in mind that
the temperate damages should be more than nominal but less than
compensatory.63 Without a doubt, the Spouses Bombasi suffered some form of pecuniary loss in the impairment of their store. Based on the record of the
case,64 the demolished store was housed on a two-story building located at the
market’s commercial area and its concrete walls remained strong and not affected
by the fire. However, due to the failure of the Spouses Bombasi to prove the exact
amount of damage in accordance with the Rules of Evidence ,65 this court finds
thatP200,000.00 is the amount just and reasonable under the circumstances.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. Accordingly, the Decision of the
Sandiganbayan dated 28 April 2003 is hereby AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION.
The Court affirms the decision finding the accused Paulino S. Asilo, Jr. and Demetrio
T. Comendador guilty of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019. We declare
the finality of the dismissal of both the criminal and civil cases against Alberto S.
Angeles as the same was not appealed. In view of the death of Demetrio T.
Comendador pending trial, his criminal liability is extinguished; but his civil
liability survives. The Municipality of Nagcarlan, Paulino Asilo and Demetrio T.
Comendador, as substituted by Victoria Bueta Vda. De Comendador, are hereby
declared solidarily liable to the Spouses Bombasi for temperate damages in the
amount of P200,000.00 and moral damages in the amount of P100,000.00.
Costs against the petitioners-appellants.
SO ORDERED.
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson
CONCHITA CAPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions
in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
7/27/2019 Puboff Cases
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/puboff-cases 32/35
EN BANC
G.R. No. 102549 August 10, 1992
EDWIN B. JAVELLANA, petitioner,
vs.DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND LUIS T. SANTOS,SECRETARY, respondents.
Reyes, Lozada and Sabado for petitioner.
GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.:
This petition for review on certiorari involves the right of a public official to engage
in the practice of his profession while employed in the Government.
Attorney Erwin B. Javellana was an elected City Councilor of Bago City, Negros
Occidental. On October 5, 1989, City Engineer Ernesto C. Divinagracia filed
Administrative Case No. C-10-90 against Javellana for: (1) violation of Department
of Local Government (DLG) Memorandum Circular No. 80-38 dated June 10, 1980
in relation to DLG Memorandum Circular No. 74-58 and of Section 7, paragraph b,
No. 2 of Republic Act No. 6713, otherwise known as the "Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees," and (2) for oppression,
misconduct and abuse of authority.
Divinagracia's complaint alleged that Javellana, an incumbent member of the City
Council or Sanggunian Panglungsod of Bago City, and a lawyer by profession, has
continuously engaged in the practice of law without securing authority for that
purpose from the Regional Director, Department of Local Government, as requiredby DLG Memorandum Circular No. 80-38 in relation to DLG Memorandum Circular
No. 74-58 of the same department; that on July 8, 1989, Javellana, as counsel for
Antonio Javiero and Rolando Catapang, filed a case against City Engineer Ernesto C.
Divinagracia of Bago City for "Illegal Dismissal and Reinstatement with Damages"
putting him in public ridicule; that Javellana also appeared as counsel in several
criminal and civil cases in the city, without prior authority of the DLG Regional
Director, in violation of DLG Memorandum Circular No. 80-38 which provides:
MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 80-38
TO ALL: PROVINCIAL GOVERNORS, CITY AND
MUNICIPALITY MAYORS, KLGCD REGIONAL
DIRECTORS AND ALL CONCERNED
SUBJECT: AMENDING MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO.
80-18 ON SANGGUNIAN SESSIONS,PER DIEMS ,
ALLOWANCES, STAFFING AND OTHER RELATED
MATTERS
In view of the issuance or Circular No. 5-A by the Joint
Commission on Local Government Personnel Administration
which affects certain provisions of MC 80-18, there is a need to
amend said Memorandum Circular to substantially conform to
the pertinent provisions of Circular No. 9-A.
xxx xxx xxx
C. Practice of Profession
The Secretary (now Minister) of Justice in an Opinion No. 46
Series of 1973 stated inter alia that "members of local legislativebodies, other than the provincial governors or the mayors, do
not keep regular office hours." "They merely attend meetings or
sessions of the provincial board or the city or municipal council"
and that provincial board members are not even required "to
have an office in the provincial building." Consequently, they are
not therefore to required to report daily as other regular
government employees do, except when they are delegated to
perform certain administrative functions in the interest of public
service by the Governor or Mayor as the case may be. For this
reason, they may, therefore, be allowed to practice their professions provided that in so doing an authority . . . first be
secured from the Regional Directors pursuant to Memorandum
Circular No. 74-58, provided, however , that no government personnel, property, equipment or supplies shall be utilized in
the practice of their professions. While being authorized to
practice their professions, they should as much as possible
attend regularly any and all sessions, which are not very often,
of their Sanggunians for which they were elected as members by
their constituents except in very extreme cases, e.g., doctors who
are called upon to save a life. For this purpose it is desired that
they always keep a calendar of the dates of the sessions, regular or
special of their Sanggunians so that conflicts of attending court
cases in the case of lawyers and Sanggunian sessions can beavoided .
7/27/2019 Puboff Cases
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/puboff-cases 33/35
As to members of the bar the authority given for them to
practice their profession shall always be subject to the
restrictions provided for in Section 6 of Republic Act 5185. In all
cases, the practice of any profession should be favorably
recommended by the Sanggunian concerned as a body and by the
provincial governors, city or municipal mayors, as the case may
be. (Emphasis ours, pp. 28-30,Rollo.)
On August 13, 1990, a formal hearing of the complaint was held in Iloilo City inwhich the complainant, Engineer Divinagracia, and the respondent, Councilor
Javellana, presented their respective evidence.
Meanwhile, on September 10, 1990, Javellana requested the DLG for a permit to
continue his practice of law for the reasons stated in his letter-request. On the same
date, Secretary Santos replied as follows:
1st Indorsement
September 10, 1990
Respectfully returned to Councilor Erwin B. Javellana, Bago City,
his within letter dated September 10, 1990, requesting for apermit to continue his practice of law for reasons therein stated,
with this information that, as represented and consistent with
law, we interpose no objection thereto, provided that such
practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with his official
functions. (p. 60, Rollo.)
On September 21, 1991, Secretary Luis T. Santos issued Memorandum Circular No.
90-81 setting forth guidelines for the practice of professions by local elective
officials as follows:
TO: All Provincial Governors, City and
Municipal Mayors, Regional Directors and All
Concerned.
SUBJECT: Practice of Profession and Private
Employment of Local Elective Officials
Section 7 of Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees), states, in part,
that "In addition to acts and omission of public officials . . . now
prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the following
shall constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public
officials . . . and are hereby declared to be unlawful: . . . (b) Public
Officials . . . during their incumbency shall not : (1) . . . accept
employment as officer, employee, consultant, counsel, broker,
agent, trustee or nominee in any private enterprise regulated,
supervised or licensed by their office unless expressly allowed
by law; (2) Engage in the private practice of their profession
unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided that such
practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with their official
functions: . . .
xxx xxx xxx
Under Memorandum Circular No. 17 of the Office of the
President dated September 4, 1986, the authority to grant any
permission, to accept private employment in any capacity and to
exercise profession, to any government official shall be granted by
the head of the Ministry (Department) or agency in accordance
with Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules, which
provides,in part, that:
No officer shall engage directly in any . . .
vocation or profession . . . without a written
permission from the head of the
Department: Provided , that this prohibition
will be absolute in the case of those officers . .
. whose duties and responsibilities requirethat their entire time be at the disposal of the
Government: Provided, further , That if an
employee is granted permission to engage in
outside activities, the time so devoted outside
of office should be fixed by the Chief of the
agency to the end that it will not impair in
anyway the efficiency of the officer or
employee . . . subject to any additional
conditions which the head of the office deems
necessary in each particular case in the
interest of the service, as expressed in thevarious issuances of the Civil Service
Commission.
Conformably with the foregoing, the following guidelines are to be
observed in the grant of permission to the practice of profession
and to the acceptance of private employment of local elective
officials, to wit :
1) The permission shall be granted by theSecretary of Local Government;
7/27/2019 Puboff Cases
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/puboff-cases 34/35
2) Provincial Governors, City and Municipal
Mayors whose duties and responsibilities
require that their entire time be at the
disposal of the government in conformity
with Sections 141, 171 and 203 of the Local
Government Code (BP 337), are prohibited to
engage in the practice of their profession and
to accept private employment during their
incumbency:
3) Other local elective officials may be allowed
to practice their profession or engage in
private employment on a limited basis at the
discretion of the Secretary of Local
Government, subject to existing laws and to the
following conditions:
a) That the time so
devoted outside of office
hours should be fixed by
the local chief executive
concerned to the end that it will not impair in any
way the efficiency of the
officials concerned;
b) That no government
time, personnel, funds or
supplies shall be utilized in
the pursuit of one's
profession or private
employment;
c) That no conflict of interests between the
practice of profession or
engagement in private
employment and the official
duties of the concerned
official shall arise thereby;
d) Such other conditions
that the Secretary deems
necessary to impose oneach particular case, in the
interest of public service.
(Emphasis supplied, pp.
31-32, Rollo.)
On March 25, 1991, Javellana filed a Motion to Dismiss the administrative caseagainst him on the ground mainly that DLG Memorandum Circulars Nos. 80-38 and
90-81 are unconstitutional because the Supreme Court has the sole and exclusive
authority to regulate the practice of law.
In an order dated May 2, 1991, Javellana's motion to dismiss was denied by thepublic respondents. His motion for reconsideration was likewise denied on June 20,
1991.
Five months later or on October 10, 1991, the Local Government Code of 1991 (RA
7160) was signed into law, Section 90 of which provides:
Sec. 90. Practice of Profession. — (a) All governors, city and
municipal mayors are prohibited from practicing their
profession or engaging in any occupation other than the exercise
of their functions as local chief executives.
(b) Sanggunian members may practice their professions, engagein any occupation, or teach in schools except during session
hours: Provided, That sanggunian members who are members of
the Bar shall not :
(1) Appear as counsel before any court in any
civil case wherein a local government unit or
any office, agency, or instrumentality of the
government is the adverse party;
(2) Appear as counsel in any criminal case
wherein an officer or employee of the
national or local government is accused of an
offense committed in relation to his office;
(3) Collect any fee for their appearance in
administrative proceedings involving the local
government unit of which he is an official; and
(4) Use property and personnel of the
Government except when the sanggunian
member concerned is defending the interest
of the Government.
7/27/2019 Puboff Cases
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/puboff-cases 35/35
(c) Doctors of medicine may practice their profession even
during official hours of work only on occasions of
emergency: Provided , That the officials concerned do not derive
monetary compensation therefrom. (Emphasis ours.)
Administrative Case No. C-10-90 was again set for hearing on November 26, 1991.
Javellana thereupon filed this petition for certiorari praying that DLG Memorandum
Circulars Nos. 80-38 and 90-81 and Section 90 of the new Local Government Code
(RA 7160) be declared unconstitutional and null void because:
(1) they violate Article VIII, Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution, which provides:
Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
xxx xxx xxx
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection andenforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and
procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the
Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such
rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure forthe speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of
the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify
substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts
andquasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless
disapproved by the Supreme Court.
(2) They constitute class legislation, being discriminatory against the legal and
medical professions for only sanggunian members who are lawyers and doctors
are restricted in the exercise of their profession while dentists, engineers,
architects, teachers, opticians, morticians and others are not so restricted (RA
7160, Sec. 90 [b-1]).
In due time, the Solicitor General filed his Comment on the petition and the
petitioner submitted a Reply. After deliberating on the pleadings of the parties, the
Court resolved to dismiss the petition for lack of merit.
As a matter of policy, this Court accords great respect to the decisions and/or
actions of administrative authorities not only because of the doctrine of separation
of powers but also for their presumed knowledgeability and expertise in the
enforcement of laws and regulations entrusted to their jurisdiction (Santiago vs.
Deputy Executive Secretary, 192 SCRA 199, citing Cuerdo vs. COA, 166 SCRA 657).
With respect to the present case, we find no grave abuse of discretion on the part of
the respondent, Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), in issuing
the questioned DLG Circulars Nos. 80-30 and 90-81 and in denying petitioner's
motion to dismiss the administrative charge against him.
In the first place, complaints against public officers and employees relating orincidental to the performance of their duties are necessarily impressed with public
interest for by express constitutional mandate, a public office is a public trust. The
complaint for illegal dismissal filed by Javiero and Catapang against City Engineer
Divinagracia is in effect a complaint against the City Government of Bago City, their
real employer, of which petitioner Javellana is a councilman. Hence, judgment against City Engineer Divinagracia would actually be a judgment against the City
Government. By serving as counsel for the complaining employees and assisting
them to prosecute their claims against City Engineer Divinagracia, the petitioner
violated Memorandum Circular No. 74-58 (in relation to Section 7[b-2] of RA 6713)
prohibiting a government official from engaging in the private practice of his
profession, if such practice would represent interests adverse to the government.
Petitioner's contention that Section 90 of the Local Government Code of 1991 and
DLG Memorandum Circular No. 90-81 violate Article VIII, Section 5 of the
Constitution is completely off tangent. Neither the statute nor the circular trenches
upon the Supreme Court's power and authority to prescribe rules on the practice of
law. The Local Government Code and DLG Memorandum Circular No. 90-81 simply
prescribe rules of conduct for public officials to avoid conflicts of interest betweenthe discharge of their public duties and the private practice of their profession, in
those instances where the law allows it.
Section 90 of the Local Government Code does not discriminate against lawyers
and doctors. It applies to all provincial and municipal officials in the professions or
engaged in any occupation. Section 90 explicitly provides that sanggunian
members "may practice their professions, engage in any occupation, or teach in
schools expect during session hours." If there are some prohibitions that apply
particularly to lawyers, it is because of all the professions, the practice of law is
more likely than others to relate to, or affect, the area of public service.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Costs against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Medialdea, Regalado,
Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon and Bellosillo, JJ., concur.