FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 125498. February 18, 1999]
CONRADO B. RODRIGO, JR., ALEJANDRO A. FACUNDO and REYNALDO G. MEJICA, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (First Division), OMBUDSMAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
KAPUNAN, J.:
Petitioners Conrado B. Rodrigo and
Reynaldo G. Mejica are the Mayor and Municipal Planning and Development
Coordinator, respectively, of San
Nicolas, Pangasinan, while petitioner Alejandro A. Facundo is the former Municipal
Treasurer of the same municipality.
On 15 June 1992, the Municipality
of San Nicolas, represented by Mayor Rodrigo, entered into an agreement with
Philwood Construction, represented by Larry Lu, for the electrification of
Barangay Caboloan, San Nicolas, for the sum of P486,386.18, requiring:
1. Installation of the two (2) units diesel power generator (20) KVA, 220 W, Battery start and other accessories);
2. Installation of 24 rolls feeder lines with nos. 6, 8 and ten wires;
3. Installation of 40 units 4 x 4 wooden post with accessories; and
4. Construction
of powerhouse with concrete foundation double throw safety switches (double
pole, 250 amperes capacity of 220 V with fuse).[1]
On 2 September 1992, Mejica, the
Planning and Development Coordinator of San Nicolas, prepared an Accomplishment
Report stating that the Caboloan Power Generation project was 97.5%
accomplished. Said report was
supposedly approved by mayor Rodrigo and confirmed by Larry Lu. On the basis of said report, payment of P452,825.53
was effected by the Municipal Treasurer, petitioner Facundo, to Philwood
Construction.
On 14 August 1993, petitioners
received a Notice of Disallowance dated 21 June 1993 from the Provincial
Auditor of Pangasinan, Atty. Agustin Chan, Jr., who found that as per COA
(Commission on Audit) evaluation of the electrification project, only 60.0171%
of the project (equivalent to P291,915.07) was actually
accomplished. Of the two units of
generator supposedly purchased, only one second-hand unit was delivered. The same generator broke down after only two
nights of operation. In addition,
instead of 40 wooden posts, only 27 were installed. The powerhouse was only 65.635% completed. The Provincial Auditor thus disallowed the
amount of P160,910.46.
The graph below serves to
illustrate the conflicts between Mejica’s report and the COA’s:
|
|
|
Percentage Accomplished |
|
|
Amount paid By Municipality |
|
93.0090% |
(accdg. to Mejica’s report) |
|
Cost of Actual Accomplishment |
|
|
(accdg. to COA report) |
|
Amount Disallowed |
|
33.08% |
(difference) |
In
September 1993, petitioners requested the Provincial Auditor to lift the notice
of disallowance[2] and to re-inspect the project.[3] Petitioners reiterated their plea in a letter to the Provincial
Auditor dated 3 November 1993,[4] attaching therewith a “Certificate of Acceptance and
Completion”[5] signed by Clemente Arquero, Jr., Barangay Captain of
Caboloan, and Eusebio Doton, President of the Cabaloan Electric
Cooperative. The Provincial Auditor,
however, allegedly did not act on petitioners’ requests.
On 10 January 1994, the Provincial
Auditor filed a criminal complaint for estafa before the Ombudsman against
petitioners. Likewise impleaded were
Larry Lu and Ramil Ang, President and General Manager, and Project Engineer,
respectively, of Philwood Construction.
On 10 June 1995, Acting Ombudsman
Francisco Villa approved the filing of an information against petitioners for
violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019[6] before the Sandiganbayan.
On 28 July 1995, petitioners filed
a motion for reinvestigation before the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan granted said motion
in an Order dated 22 April 1996.
On 7 November 1995, the Office of
the Special Prosecutor issued a memorandum recommending that the charges
against petitioners be maintained. The
Ombudsman approved said memorandum.
Petitioners thereafter filed
before the Sandiganbayan a motion to quash the information alleging, as
grounds therefor that (1) the facts alleged in the information did not
constitute an offense, and (2) the same information charged more than one
offense. Petitioners, however, did not
elaborate on these grounds. They
instead faulted the Provincial Auditor for instituting the complaint against
them notwithstanding the pendency of their opposition to the notice of
disallowance. They also argued that the
evidence against them did not establish the element of damage nor the presence
of any conspiracy between them.
The Sandiganbayan denied
said motion in an Order dated 18 March 1996.
On 18 March 1996, the prosecution
moved to suspend petitioners pendente lite. Petitioners opposed the motion on the ground that the Sandiganbayan
lacked jurisdiction over them. In a
Resolution dated 2 July 1996, the Sandiganbayan ruled that it had
jurisdiction over petitioners and ordered the suspension of petitioners pendente
lite.
Petitioners thus filed before this
Court the instant petition for certiorari under Rule 65, praying that
the Court annul: (a) the order of the Sandiganbayan
denying petitioners’ motion to quash, and (b) the resolution of the same court
upholding its jurisdiction over petitioners.
Petitioners likewise prayed that this Court issue a temporary
restraining order to enjoin the Sandiganbayan from proceeding with the
case.
On 28 August 1998, the court
resolved to issue the temporary restraining order prayed for.
Petitioners allege the following
grounds in support of their petition:
I
THE SANDIGANBAYAN ERRED IN ALLOWING THE LITIGATION OF THE CRIMINAL INFORMATION FOR CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATING SECTION 3(E) OF THE ANTI- GRAFT ACT (R.A. 3019) WHEN THE NOTICE OF DISALLOWANCE STILL PENDS WITH THE PROVINCIAL AUDITOR UNDER PETITIONER’ PROTEST SUPPORTED BY CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE REQUIRED ELEMENT OF 'CAUSING UNDUE INJURY TO ANY PARTY, INCLUDING THE GOVERNMENT’ AND GROSS NEGLIGENCE.
II
THE SANDIGANBAYAN HAS NO JURISDICTION TO PROCEED AGAINST ALL THE PETITIONERS AND ALL THE PROCEEDINGS THEREIN, PARTICULARLY THE ORDER OF SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE PENDENTE LITE, ARE NULL AND VOID AB INITIO.
III
THE ONGOING PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE SANDIGANBAYAN IS A CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE PETITIONERS UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE AS IT WAS PRECEDED BY HASTY, MALICIOUS, SHAM AND HASTY PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION INEVITABLY EXPOSING THEM TO A PROLONGED ANXIETY, AGGRAVATION, EXPENSES, AND HUMILIATION OF A PUBLIC TRIAL.
IV
THE PRECIPITATE SANDIGANBAYAN ORDER OF SUSPENSION IS A LEGAL
ERROR AS THE SAME EVIDENTLY THE LACK OF THE REQUIRED COLD NEUTRALITY OF AN
IMPARTIAL TRIBUNAL VIOLATING PETITIONERS’ CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS UNDER
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE AND BILL
OF RIGHTS.[7]
The first ground raises two
issues: (1) whether petitioners’ right to due process was violated by the
filing of the complaint against them by the Provincial Auditor, and (2) whether
the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in filing the information
against petitioners. The second
questions the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over petitioners. The third and fourth grounds are related to
the first and are subsumed thereunder.
After a meticulous scrutiny of
petitioners’ arguments, we find the petition devoid of merit.
I
Petitioners contend that the
institution by the Provincial Auditor of the complaint despite the pendency of
their opposition to the notice of disallowance violates their right to due
process. They submit that “the issuance
of a notice of disallowance against (them) compels the provincial auditor to
either accept a settlement or adjudicate and decide on ‘the written
explanation for the purpose of lifting/settling the suspension or extending the
time to answer beyond the ninety (90) day period prior to its conversion into a
disallowance.”’[8]
The italicized portion above is an
excerpt from Section 44.6.4 of the State Audit Manual, which states in full:
Sec. 44.6.4. Auditor’s Responsibility re Evaluation of Disallowance. – It shall be the responsibility of the auditor to exercise professional judgment in evaluating, on the basis of the facts and circumstances of each case as well as the pertinent provisions of applicable laws, rules and regulations, the grounds for a charge or suspension/disallowance of an account or transaction.
It shall be the responsibility of the auditor to exercise sound judgment in evaluating the written explanation of the accountable/responsible/liable officer concerned for the purpose of lifting the suspension or extending the time to answer beyond the ninety (90) day period prior to its conversion into a disallowance. (Underscoring supplied.)
The aforequoted provision should
be read in conjunction with Section 82 of the State Audit Code,[9] which states that:
(a) charge of suspension which is not satisfactorily explained within ninety days after receipt or notice by the accountable officer concerned shall become a disallowance, unless the Commission or auditor concerned shall, in writing and for good cause shown, extend the time for answer beyond ninety days.
At this point, it may be useful to
distinguish between a disallowance and a suspension. A disallowance is the disapproval of a credit or credits
to an account/accountable officer’s accountability due to non-compliance with
law or regulations.[10] Thus, the auditor may disallow an
expenditure/transaction which is unlawful or improper.[11]
A suspension, on the other
hand, is the deferment of action to debit/credit the account/accountable
officer’s accountability pending compliance with certain requirements.[12] A notice of suspension is issued on transactions or
accounts which could otherwise have been settled except for some requirements,
like lack of supporting documents or certain signatures. It is also issued on transactions or
accounts the legality/propriety of which the auditor doubts but which he may
later allow after satisfactory or valid justification is submitted by the
parties concerned.[13]
As stated in Section 82, supra,
however, the suspension shall become a disallowance if the charge of suspension
is “not satisfactorily explained within ninety days after receipt or notice by
the accountable officer concerned." The ninety-day period within which the
accountable officer may answer the charge of suspension may nevertheless be
extended by the Commission or the auditor for “good cause shown.”
Clearly, petitioners
misinterpreted Section 44.6.4. First,
petitioners were not charged with suspension but disallowance.
Second, the “written explanation” referred to in said section is “for the
purpose of lifting the suspension or extending the time to answer beyond the
ninety (90) day period prior to its conversion into a disallowance,” not
for contesting a disallowance, as petitioners wrongfully assert. Section
44.6.4., therefore, finds no application in this case.
On the other hand, respondents
correctly invoke Sections 55 and 56 of Commission on Audit Circular No.
85-156-B, which respectively provide:
SECTION 55. REPORTING FRAUD/UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES
If after evaluation of the findings, the auditor is convinced that the evidence sufficiently discloses the fraud and other unlawful activities and identifies the perpetrators thereof, he shall prepare the sworn statements of the examining witnesses and/or other witnesses and make a report to the Manager/Regional Director concerned, attaching thereto copies of the pertinent affidavits and other supporting documents.
SECTION 56. INSTITUTION OF CRIMINAL ACTION
If criminal prosecution is warranted, the Regional Director/Manager concerned with respect to National Government Agencies/government Owned or Controlled Corporations or Provincial/City Auditors with respect to local government units shall prepare a letter-complaint and file the same with the Tanodbayan or the local deputized Tanodbayan prosecutor within ten (10) days from receipt of the report from the examining auditor, attaching thereto copies of the sworn statements or affidavits of witnesses and other pertinent documents.
Section 56 imposes upon the
Provincial Auditor the duty to file a complaint before the Tanodbayan (now the Ombudsman)
when, from the evidence obtained during the audit, he is convinced that
“criminal prosecution is warranted.”
The Provincial Auditor need not resolve the opposition to the notice of
disallowance and the motion for re-inspection pending in his office before he
institutes such complaint so long as there are sufficient grounds to support
the same. The right to due process of
the respondents to the complaint, insofar as the criminal aspect of the case is
concerned, is not impaired by such institution. The respondents will still have the opportunity to confront the
accusations contained in the complaint during the preliminary
investigation. They may still raise the
same defenses contained in their motion to lift the disallowance, as well as
other defenses, in the preliminary investigation. Should the Provincial Auditor later reverse himself and grant
respondents’ motions, or should the COA, or this Court, subsequently absolve
them from liability during the pendency of the preliminary investigation, the
respondents may ask the prosecuting officer to take cognizance of such
decision. The prosecuting officer may
then accord such decision its proper weight.
It bears stressing that the
exoneration of respondents in the audit investigation does not mean the
automatic dismissal of the complaint against them. The preliminary investigation, after all, is independent from the
investigation conducted by the COA, their purposes distinct from each other. The first involves the determination of the
fact of the commission of a crime; the second relates to the administrative
aspect of the expenditure of public funds.[14]
Accordingly, we hold that the
Ombudsman did not err in entertaining the complaint filed by the Provincial
Auditor against petitioners, nor the Sandiganbayan in allowing trial to
proceed, despite the pendency of petitioners’ motions before the auditor.
II
Petitioners argue that their
opposition to the disallowance, supported as it is by a certificate of
acceptance and completion, would betray the absence of the elements of evident
bad faith or negligence, and damage.
They likewise claim that the evidence does not establish conspiracy
among them.
The presence or absence of the
elements of the crime, however, is evidentiary in nature and is a matter of defense,
the truth of which can be best passed upon after a full-blown trial on the
merits.[15] The same applies to the alleged absence of any
conspiracy between the accused.
This Court, moreover, has
maintained a consistent policy of non-interference in the determination of the
Ombudsman regarding the existence of probable cause, provided there is no grave
abuse in the exercise of such discretion.[16] In a recent decision,[17] this Court, quoting Young vs. Office of the
Ombudsman,[18] stated the rationale for this rule:
... The rule is based not only upon respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman but upon practicality as well. Otherwise, the functions of the court will be grievously hampered by innumerable petitions assailing the dismissal of investigatory proceedings conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman with regard to complaints filed before it, in much the same way that the courts would be extremely swamped if they could be compelled to review the exercise of discretion on the part of the fiscals or prosecuting attorneys each time they decide to file an information in court or dismiss a complaint by a private complainant.
Petitioners have failed to
establish any such abuse on the part of the Ombudsman.
III
Petitioners next question the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
They contend that Mayor Rodrigo occupies a position of Grade 24 and is,
therefore, beyond the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
Before the passage of Republic Act
No. 7975[19] on 30 March 1995, the pertinent portions of section 4
of Presidential Decree No. 1606,[20] as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1861,[21] read as follows:
SEC. 4. Jurisdiction. – The Sandiganbayan shall exercise:
(a) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving:
(1) Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code;
(2) Other offenses or felonies
committed by public officers and employees in relation to their office,
including those employed in government-owned or controlled corporations,
whether simple or complexed with other crimes, where the penalty prescribed by
law is higher than prision correccional or imprisonment for six (6)
years, or a fine of P6,000.00; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that offenses or
felonies mentioned in this paragraph where the penalty prescribed by law does
not exceed prision correccional or imprisonment for six (6) years or a
fine of P6,000.00 shall be tried by the proper Regional Trial Court,
Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court and Municipal Circuit Trial
Court.
xxx.
Section 2 of R.A. No. 7975
subsequently redefined the jurisdiction of the Anti-Graft Court such that the
pertinent portions of Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606 now reads:
Sec. 4. Jurisdiction. -- the Sandiganbayan shall exercise original jurisdiction in all cases involving:
a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the principal accused are officials occupying the following positions in the government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense:
(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher, otherwise classified as grade “27” and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically including:
(a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan and provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other provincial department heads;
(b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod, city treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other city department heads.
(c) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul and higher;
(d) Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of higher rank;
(e) PNP chief superintendent and PNP officers of higher rank;
(f) City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor;
(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations;
(2) Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade “27” and up under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989;
(3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution;
(4) Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commissions, without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution; and
(5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade “27” and higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.
b. Other offenses or felonies committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in subsection (a) of this section in relation to their office.
c. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A.
In cases where none of the principal accused are occupying positions corresponding to salary grade “27” or higher, as prescribed in the said Republic Act No. 6758, or PNP officers occupying the rank of superintendent or higher, or their equivalent, exclusive jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the proper Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, and Municipal Circuit Trial Court, as the case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdictions as provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129.
x x x
Then Associate, now Chief Justice,
Hilario Davide explained the effects of these amendments in People vs.
Magallanes:[22]
As a consequence of these
amendments, the Sandiganbayan partly lost its exclusive original
jurisdiction in cases involving violations of R.A. No. 3019, as amended,[23] as amended; R.A. No. 1379,[24] and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised
Penal Code,[25] it retains only cases where the accused are those
enumerated in subsection a, Section 4 above and, generally, national and
local officials classified as Grade “27” and higher under the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989 (R.A. No. 6758).
Moreover, its jurisdiction over other offenses or felonies committed by
public officials and employees in relation to their office is no longer
determined by the prescribed penalty, viz., that which is higher than prision
correccional or imprisonment for six years or a fine of P6,000.00; it is enough that they are committed by
those public officials and employees enumerated in subsection a, Section
4 above. However, it retains its
exclusive original jurisdiction over civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to
or in connection with E.O. Nos. 1,[26] 2,[27] 14,[28] and 14-A.[29]
The apparent intendment of these
amendments is to ease the dockets of the Sandiganbayan and to allow the
Anti-Graft Court to focus its efforts on the trial of those occupying higher
positions in government, the proverbial “big fish.” Section 4, as amended, freed the Sandiganbayan from the
task of trying cases involving lower-ranking government officials, imposing
such duty upon the regular courts instead.
The present structure is also intended to benefit these officials of
lower rank, especially those residing outside Metro Manila, charged with crimes
related to their office, who can ill-afford the expenses of a trial in Metro
Manila. As the Explanatory Note of
House Bill No. 9825[30] states:
One is given the impression that only lowly government workers or the so-called ‘small fry’ are expediently tried and convicted by the Sandiganbayan. The reason for this is that at present, the Sandiganbayan has the exclusive and original jurisdiction over graft cases committed by all officials and employees of the government, irrespective of rank and position, from the lowest-paid janitor to the highly-placed government official. This jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan must be modified in such a way that only those occupying high positions in the government and the military (the big fishes) may fall under its exclusive and original jurisdiction. In this was, the Sandiganbayan can devote its time to big time cases involving the “big fishes” in the government. The regular courts will be vested with the jurisdiction of cases involving less-ranking officials (those occupying positions corresponding to salary grade twenty-seven (27) and below and PNP members with a rank lower than Senior Superintendent. This set-up will prove more convenient to people in the provinces. They will no longer have to travel to Manila to file their complaint or to defend themselves. They can already file their complaint or their defense before the Regional Trial Court or the Municipal Trial Court in their respective localities, as the case may be.
To distinguish the “big fish” from
the “small fry,” Congress deemed the 27th Grade
as the demarcation between those who should come under the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan and those within the regular courts’. (While H.B. No. 9825 originally intended only officials of Grade
28 and above as within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan,
the resulting law included officials of Grade 27.) Thus, officials occupying positions of Grade 27 and above,
charged with crimes referred to in Section 4 a. and b., are within the original
and exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan; those below come under the
jurisdiction of the regular courts.
Although some positions of Grade
27 and above are stated by name in Section 4 a., the position of Municipal
Mayor is not among them. Nevertheless,
Congress provided a catchall in Section 4 a. (5), thus:
(5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade “27” and higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.
Such a
catchall is necessary, for it would be
impractical, if not impossible, for Congress to list down each position created
or will be created pertaining to Grades 27 and above.
At present, Volume III of the 1997
edition of the Index of Occupational Services, Position Titles and Salary
Grades, which was prepared by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM)
pursuant to Republic Act No. 6758,[31] otherwise known as the “Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989,” lists the following positions under Salary Grade
27, including the position of “Municipal Mayor I”:
Assistant Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Assistant Regional Cabinet Secretary
Assistant Regional Executive Secretary
Board Member I
Chairman, Police Regional Appellate Board
Chief of Mission, Class II
City Government Department Head III
City Trial Court Judge
Clerk of the Commission
Commission Member I
Court Attorney VI
Court of Appeals Reporter II
Deputy Administrator I
Deputy Commissioner I
Deputy Executive Director III
Deputy Insurance Commissioner
Director III
Executive Clerk of Court II
Executive Director II
Government Corporate Attorney III
Graft Investigation Officer II
Municipal Mayor I
Professor IV
Project Manager III
Prosecutor II
Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator
Public Attorney IV
Regional Treasurer
Register of Deeds IV
Sangguniang Panlalawigan Member
Sangguniang Panlungsod Member II
Scientist II
Solicitor II
Special Prosecution Officer II
State Counsel IV
SUC President I
SUC Vice-President III
Earlier,
in the 1989 version of the same Index, the Municipal Mayor was also assigned a
Salary Grade of 27. It appears,
therefore, that petitioner Mayor comes within the exclusive and original
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
Petitioners, however, claim that
at the time of the commission of the alleged crime on or about 2 September
1992, Mayor Rodrigo, the highest public ranking public official impleaded in
this case, was receiving a monthly salary of P10,441.00. Such amount 6758 is supposedly equivalent to
a fourth step increment in Grade 24 under the Salary Schedule prescribed in
Section 7 of R.A. No. 6758: *
SEC. 7. Salary Schedule. – The Department of Budget and Management is hereby directed to implement the Salary Schedule prescribed below:
|
Salary Schedule |
|
|||||||
|
Grade |
1st |
2nd |
3rd |
4th |
5th |
6th |
7th |
8th |
|
Xxx |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24 |
10,135 |
10,236 |
10,339 |
10,442 |
10,646 |
10,652 |
10,768 |
10,866 |
|
Xxx |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Petitioners
conclude that Mayor Rodrigo, at the time of the commission of the alleged
crime, was occupying a Grade 24 position and, thus, not within the
Sandiganbayan’s original and exclusive jurisdiction, as defined in Section 2 of
R.A. No. 7975.
This is a simplistic, and
altogether incorrect, interpretation of the law.
Section 5, Article IX-C of the
Constitution provides that:
The Congress shall provide for the standardization of compensation of government officials and employees, including those in government-owned or controlled corporation with original charters, taking into account the nature of the responsibilities pertaining to, and the qualifications required for their positions.
This provision is not unique to
the 1987 Constitution. The 1973
Constitution, in Section 6, Article XII thereof, contains a very similar
provision pursuant to which then President Marcos, in the exercise of his
legislative powers, issued Presidential Decree No. 985.[32]
However, with the advent of the
new Constitution, and in compliance therewith, Congress enacted R.A. No.
6758. Section 2 thereof declares it the
policy of the State “to provide equal pay for substantially equal work and to
base differences in pay upon substantive differences in duties and
responsibilities, and qualification requirements of the positions."
To give life to this policy, as
well as the constitutional prescription to “(take) into account the nature of
the responsibilities pertaining to, and the qualifications required” for the
positions of government officials and employees, Congress adopted the scheme
employed in P.D. No. 985 for classifying positions with comparable responsibilities
and qualifications for the purpose of according such positions similar
salaries. This scheme is known as the
“Grade,” defined in P.D. No. 985 as:
Includ[ing] all classes of positions
which, although different with respect to kind or subject matter of work, are
sufficiently equivalent as to level of difficulty and responsibilities and
level of qualification requirements of the work to warrant the inclusion of
such classes of positions within one range of basic compensation.[33]
The Grade is therefore a means of
grouping positions “sufficiently equivalent as to level of difficulty and
responsibilities and level of qualification requirements of the work” so that
they may be lumped together in “one range of basic compensation.”
Thus, Congress, under Section 8 of
R.A. No. 6758, fixed the Salary Grades[34] of officials holding constitutional positions, as
follows:
SEC. 8. Salaries of Constitutional Officials and their Equivalent. – Pursuant to Section 17, Article XVIII of the Constitution, the salary of the following officials shall be in accordance with the Salary Grades indicated hereunder:
|
|
Salary Grade |
|
|
|
|
President of the Philippines |
33 |
|
Vice-President of the Philippines |
32 |
|
President of the Senate |
32 |
|
Speaker of the House of Representatives |
32 |
|
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court |
32 |
|
Senator |
31 |
|
Member of the House of Representatives |
31 |
|
Associate Justices of the Supreme Court |
31 |
|
Chairman of a Constitutional Commission under Article IX, 1987 Constitution |
31 |
|
Member of a Constitutional Commission under Article IX, 1987 Constitution |
30 |
The Department of Budget and Management is hereby authorized to determine the officials who are of equivalent rank to the foregoing Officials, where applicable, and may be assigned the same Salary Grades based on the following guidelines:
x x x
As indicated in the aforequoted
section, Congress delegated the rest of this tedious task (of fixing Salary
Grades) to the DBM, subject to the standards contained in R.A. No. 6758, by
authorizing the DBM to “determine the officials who are of equivalent rank to
the foregoing officials, where applicable,” and to assign them the same Salary Grades
subject to a set of guidelines found in said section.[35]
For positions below those
mentioned under Section 8, Section 9 directs the DBM to prepare the “Index of
Occupational Services” guided by (a) the Benchmark Position prescribed in
Section 9,[36] and (b) the following factors:
(1) the education and experience required to perform the duties and responsibilities of the position;
(2) nature and complexity of the work to be performed;
(3) the kind of supervision received;
(4) mental and/or physical strain required in the completion of the work;
(5) nature and extent of internal and external relationships;
(6) kind of supervision exercised;
(7) decision-making responsibility;
(8) responsibility for accuracy of records and reports;
(9) accountability for funds, properties and equipment; and
(10) hardship, hazard and personal risk involved in the job.
Pursuant to such authority, the
DBM drafted the 1989 Index of Occupational Services, Position Titles and Salary
Grades, later revised in 1997. In both
versions, the position of Municipal Mayor was assigned a Salary Grade 27.
That petitioner received a salary
less than that prescribed for such Grade is explained by Sections 10 and 19 (b)
of R.A. No. 6758, which respectively provide:
SEC. 10. Local Government Units (LGUs). -- The rates of pay in LGUs shall be determined on the basis of the class and financial capability of each LGU: Provided, That such rates of pay shall not exceed the following percentages of the rates in the salary schedule prescribed under Section 7 hereof:
|
|
For Provinces/Cities |
For Municipalities |
|
Special Cities |
100% |
|
|
1st Class |
100% |
90% |
|
2nd Class |
95% |
85% |
|
3rd Class |
90% |
80% |
|
4th Class |
85% |
75% |
|
5th Class |
80% |
70% |
|
6th Class |
75% |
65% |
SEC. 19. Funding Source. – The funding sources for the amounts necessary to implement this Act shall be as follows:
(a) x x x
(b) For local government units, the amount shall be charged against their respective funds. Local government units which do not have adequate or sufficient funds shall only partially implement the established rates as may be approved by the Joint Commission under Section 8 of Presidential Decree No. 1188: Provided, That any partial implementation shall be uniform and proportionate for all positions in each local government unit: Provided further, That savings from National Assistance to Local Government Units (NALGU) funds may be used for this purpose.
x x x. (Underscoring supplied.)
Thus, a local government
official’s actual salary may be less than what the Salary Schedule under
Section 7 prescribes, depending on the class and financial capability of his or
her respective local government unit.
This circumstance, however, has no bearing on such official’s
Grade. As the foregoing discussion
shows, on official’s salary is determined by the Grade accorded his
position, and ultimately by the nature of his position – the level
of difficulty and responsibilities and level of qualification requirements of
the work. To give credence to
petitioners’ argument that Mayor Rodrigo’s salary determines his Grade would be
to misconstrue the provisions of R.A. No. 6758, and ignore the constitutional
and statutory policies behind said law.
Petitioner mayor’s position having
been classified as Grade 27 in accordance with R.A. No. 6758, and having been
charged with violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019, petitioner is subject
to the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, as defined by Section 4 a. of P.D.
No. 1606, as amended by Section 2 of R.A. No. 7975. By virtue of the same Section 4 a., as amended, his co-accused are also subject to the
Anti-Graft Court’s jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED and the
Temporary Restraining Order issued by this Court on 28 August 1996 LIFTED.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Melo, and Pardo, JJ., concur.
* * Note, however, the P1.00 discrepancy between petitioner's alleged salary and the salary prescribed under the 4th step increment for Grade 24.*
[1] Rollo, p. 44.
[2] Annex “A” of Petition, Rollo, p. 39.
[3] Annex “B” of Petition, id., at 40.
[4] Annex
“C” of Petition, id., at 41.
[5] Annex
“D” of Petition, id., at 42.
[6] The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
[7] Rollo, pp. 20-21. Italics in the
original.
[8] Id., at. 188. Italics in the
original.
[9] Presidential
Decree No. 1445.
[10] Section 2k, Commission on Audit Circular No.
85-156-B. Section 3.9 of the Manual on
Certificate of Settlement and Balances (Revised 1993) (Commission on Audit Circular No. 94-001) which superseded COA
Circular No. 85-156-B, defines disallowance as “the disapproval in audit
of a transaction, either in whole or in part.”
[11] Section 19, id. See also Section 14
of the Manual on Certificate of Settlement and Balances (Revised 1993).
[12] Section 2r, id. Under Section 3.18 of
the Manual on Certificate of Settlement and Balances (Revised 1993), a suspension
is “the deferment of action to allow or disallow in audit a transaction pending
compliance with certain requirements.”
[13] Section
21, id. See also Section 16, Manual on Certificates of Settlement and
Balances (Revised 1993).
[14] Cf. Ramos vs. Aquino, 39 SCRA 585
(1971).
[15] Olivarez
vs. Sandiganbayan, 248 SCRA 700 (1995); Ocampo III vs.
Sandiganbayan, 236 SCRA 1 (1994).
[16] Bienvenido Tan, Jr., vs. The
Honorable Sandiganbayan (Third Division), G.R. No. 128764, 10 July 1998; Rene
Knecht and Cristina de Knecht vs. Hon. Aniano A. Desierto, as Ombudsman,
et al., G.R. No. 121916, 26 June 1998; Leonila Garcia-Rueda vs.
Wilfred L. Pacasio et al., G.R. No. 118141, 5
September 1997; Camanag vs. Guerrero, 268 SCRA 473 (1997);
Paredes vs. Sandiganbayan, 252 SCRA 659 (1996); Olivarez vs.
Sandiganbayan, supra, note 15.
[17] Annie Tan vs. The Office of the
Ombudsman, et al., G.R. Nos. 114332 &114895, September 10, 1998.
[18] 228 SCRA 718 (1995).
[19] Entitled “An Act to Strengthen the
Functional and Structural Organization of the Sandiganbayan, amending for that
Purpose Presidential Decree No. 1606 , as amended."
[20] Entitled “Revising Presidential Decree No.
1486 Creating A Special Court to be known as “Sandiganbayan” and for
Other Purposes,” promulgated 10 December 1978.
[21] Entitled “Amending the Pertinent Provisions
of Presidential Decree No. 1606 and Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 Relative to the
Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and for other purposes,” promulgated
23 March 1983.
[22] 249 SCRA 212 (1995).
[23] Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
[24] Entitled, “An Act Declaring Forfeiture in
Favor of the State Any Property Found to Have Been Unlawfully Acquired by Any
Public Officer or Employee and Providing for the Proceeding Therefor.”
[25] Article
210, Direct Bribery; Article 211, Indirect Bribery; and Article 212, Corruption
of Public Officials.
[26] Creating the Presidential Commission on Good
Government.
[27] Regarding the Funds, Moneys, Assets, and
Properties Illegally Acquired or Misappropriated by Former President Ferdinand
E. Marcos, Mrs. Imelda R. Marcos, Their Close Relatives, Subordinates, Business
Associates, Dummies, Agents, or Nominees.
[28] Defining the Jurisdiction Over Cases Involving the Ill-gotten
Wealth of Former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, Mrs. Imelda R. Marcos, Members
of Their Immediate Family, Close Relatives, Subordinates, Close and/or Business Associates, Dummies, Agents, and Nominees.
[29] Amending E.O. No. 14.
[30] Introduced by Representatives Garcia (P.),
Starke, Damasing, Apostol, Abueg, Abaya, Sator, Panes and other members of the
House of Representatives Committee on Justice.
[31] An
Act Prescribing A Revised Compensation and Position Classification System in
the Government and Other Purposes. R.A.
No. 6758 went into effect on July 1, 1989 per Section 23 thereof.
[32] A Decree Revising the Position
Classification and Compensation Systems in the National Government, and
integrating the same.
[33] Section 3h, P.D. No. 985.
[34] “Salary Grade” is “the numerical place on
the Salary Schedule representing multiple steps or rates which is assigned to a
class.” (Section 2s, P.D. No. 985.)
[35]
GRADE 33 – This Grade is assigned to the President of the Republic of
the Philippines as the highest position in the government. No other position in the government service
is considered to be of equivalent rank.
GRADE 32 – This Grade is limited to the Vice President of the Republic of the Philippines and those positions which head the Legislative and Judicial Branches of the government, namely: the Senate President, Speaker of the House of Representatives and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. No other positions in the government service are considered to be of equivalent rank.
GRADE 31 – This Grade is assigned to Senators and members of the House of Representatives and those with equivalent rank as follows: the Executive Secretary, Department Secretary, Presidential Spokesman, Ombudsman, Press Secretary, Presidential Assistant with Cabinet Rank, Presidential Adviser, National Economic and Development Authority Director General, Court of Appeals Presiding Justice, Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice, Secretary of the Senate, Secretary of the House of Representatives, and President of the University of the Philippines.
An entity with a broad functional scope of operations and wide area of coverage ranging from top level policy formulation to the provision of technical and administrative support to the units under it, with functions comparable to the aforesaid positions in the preceding paragraph, can be considered organizationally equivalent to a Department, and its head to that of a Department Secretary.
GRADE 30 – Positions included are those of Department Undersecretary, Cabinet Undersecretary, Presidential Assistant, Solicitor General, Government Corporate Counsel, Court Administrator of the Supreme Court, Chief of Staff of the Office of the Vice-President, National Economic and Development Authority Deputy Director General, Presidential Management Staff Executive Director, Deputy Ombudsman, Associate Justices of the Court of Appeals, Associate Justices of the Sandiganbayan, Special Prosecutor, University of the Philippines Executive Vice-President, Mindanao State University President, Polytechnic University of the Philippines President and President of other state universities and colleges of the same class.
Heads of councils, commissions, boards and similar entities whose operations cut across offices or departments or are serving a sizeable portion of the general public and whose coverage is nationwide or whose functions are comparable to the aforecited positions in the preceding paragraph, may be placed at this level.
The equivalent rank of positions not mentioned herein or those that may be created hereafter shall be determined based on these guidelines.
xxx
[36] Benchmark Position Schedule
|
Position Title |
Salary Grade |
|
Laborer I |
1 |
|
Messenger |
2 |
|
Clerk I |
3 |
|
Driver I |
3 |
|
Stenographer I |
4 |
|
Mechanic I |
4 |
|
Carpenter II |
5 |
|
Electrician II |
6 |
|
Secretary I |
7 |
|
Bookkeeper |
8 |
|
Administrative Assistant |
8 |
|
Education Research Assistant I |
9 |
|
Cashier I |
10 |
|
Nurse I |
10 |
|
Teacher I |
10 |
|
Agrarian Reform Program Technologist |
10 |
|
Budget Officer I |
11 |
|
Chemist I |
11 |
|
Agriculturist I |
11 |
|
Social Welfare Officer I |
11 |
|
Engineer I |
12 |
|
Veterinarian I |
13 |
|
Legal Officer I |
14 |
|
Administrative Officer II |
15 |
|
Dentist II |
16 |
|
Postmaster IV |
17 |
|
Forester III |
18 |
|
Associate Professor I |
19 |
|
Rural Health Physician |
20 |