|
ALFREDO C.
BUYAGAO, Petitioner, - versus - HADJI FAIZAL G. KARON, NORMA PASANDALAN, TAYA CANDAO AND VIRGILIO
TORRES, Respondents. |
G.R. No. 162938
Present: Quisumbing,
J., Chairperson, Carpio, Carpio
Morales, Tinga, and
VELASCO, JR., JJ. Promulgated: December 27, 2007 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
QUISUMBING, J.:
This appeal seeks the reversal of the
Resolutions dated
The factual antecedents are as follows:
Petitioner Alfredo C. Buyagao held the position of Engineer
IV in the Surveys Division of the Land Management Bureau (LMB), Department of
Environment and Natural Resources – Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (DENR-ARMM).
On
WHEREFORE, the act of DENR-ARMM in dropping Buyagao
from the rolls is hereby considered null and void and is ineffective.
The DENR-ARMM is hereby
ordered to release the salaries of Alfredo Buyagao for the month of January and
to reinstate him in the payroll.
Parallel to this, a reprimand is hereby imposed
against Alfredo Buyagao for inconsistent leave records and further ordered to
report to work regularly and sign the logbook.
So Ordered.[3]
Respondent DENR-ARMM Regional Secretary Hadji
Faizal G. Karon appealed
the Order to the CSC National Office (CSC Proper). In the meantime, Buyagao was not reinstated in
office, and his salaries and benefits remained unpaid.
On
That in January 2000 or sometime prior or
subsequent thereto, in Cotabato, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, accused FAIZAL KARON,
a high ranking public official being the Regional Secretary; NORMA PASANDALAN, OIC AFMS Director; TAYA CANDAO, Personnel Officer and VIRGILIO TORRES, Legal Officer, all of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) in Autonomous Region of Muslim
Mindanao, Cotabato City, while in the performance of their official duties,
thus committing the act in relation to their office, wil[l]fully, feloniously
and unlawfully, did then and there, with grave abuse of authority, and evident
bad faith, drop a certain Alfredo C. Buyagao from the rolls and defy the orders
of the Civil Service Commission for the immediate reinstatement of the same
Alfredo C. Buyagao to his position as Engineer IV and to correspondingly pay
his salaries as such thereby causing undue injury to the latter who was
deprived of his salaries and wages.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[5]
The
Sandiganbayan ordered the OSP to conduct a reinvestigation of the case in light
of the pendency of the appeal filed by respondents before the CSC Proper. Meanwhile, Buyagao was reinstated in office
and paid his salaries on
On
WHEREFORE,
the appeal of ARMM Regional Secretary Hadji Faizal G. Karon is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the Orders dated
In deference, Ombudsman Prosecutor
Diosdado V. Calonge of the OSP issued a Resolution[8] dated
WHEREFORE,
the prosecution’s Motion to Withdraw Information is GRANTED.
As prayed for, this case is hereby DISMISSED
against all the accused for lack of probable cause.
SO ORDERED.[9]
Buyagao filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was
denied in a Resolution dated
Thus, Buyagao appealed to us raising
the following issues:
I.
RESPONDENTS
COMMITTED EVIDENT BAD FAITH IN DROPPING THE PETITIONER FROM THE ROLL OF
PERSONNEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE
AUTONOMOUS REGION OF MUSLIM MINDANAO.
II.
RESPONDENTS CAUSED UNDUE DAMAGE OR INJURY TO
THE PETITIONER FOR FAILURE OF THE RESPONDENTS TO IMMEDIATELY REINSTATE THE
PETITIONER AND PAY HIS SALARIES AND BACKWAGES DEFINED AND PUNISHED UNDER
SECTION 3(e) OF REPUBLIC ACT [NO.] 3019.[10]
Stated simply, the issues are: (1) whether respondents acted with evident bad
faith when they dropped Buyagao from the roll of
employees; and (2) whether Buyagao suffered undue
injury when respondents failed to immediately execute the Order of CSC-ARMM.
Buyagao imputes bad faith on
respondents for dropping him from the roll of employees. Further, he argues that respondents should
have immediately executed the Order of CSC-ARMM. Buyagao asserts that his reinstatement and the
payment of his salaries, two years after the Order was made, did not compensate
for the undue damage he already suffered.
The
Office of the Ombudsman, thru the OSP, filed its Comment[11] for the People. The OSP averred
that while the Order of CSC-ARMM was on appeal, respondents had nothing to defy.
It added that since the CSC Proper found
respondents’ act of dropping Buyagao from the rolls
to be consistent with law, the latter could not claim damage or undue injury. The OSP espoused the view that Buyagao’s
claims were extinguished when he was restored to office, and paid his salaries.
The
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) likewise maintains that respondents acted
in good faith when they relieved Buyagao from office. The OSG quoted Section 2,[12] Rule XII of the Revised Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Other
Personnel Actions, as amended, as the basis for respondents’ action. According to the OSG, Buyagao’s
belated presentation of medical certificates did not justify his continuous
absence without official leave. The
certificates did not indicate that Buyagao’s ailment had prevented him from
reporting for work. The OSG contends that
respondents could not have acted in bad faith, considering that the CSC
confirmed that their action was in accordance with Civil Service Rules and
Regulations. The OSG submits that respondents
deferred execution of the Order of CSC-ARMM by reason of their pending appeal,
and not because of any ill motive.
For
their part, respondents allege that the Sandiganbayan did not abuse its
discretion when it dismissed the charges against them. Respondents cited the case of Espinosa v. Office of the Ombudsman[13] that the
duty of a government prosecutor to prosecute crimes does not preclude him from
refusing to file an information when he believes there
is no prima facie evidence to do so.[14] Thus, the power to withdraw an information already filed is a mere adjunct or
consequence of the Ombudsman’s overall power to prosecute. Respondents contend that Buyagao’s
charge of graft has no basis since the CSC upheld their act of dropping him
from the rolls. This Order, the
respondents stressed, was buttressed by the findings of lack of probable cause
by the Ombudsman and the Sandiganbayan.
After a
thorough consideration of the circumstances in this case, we are in agreement
that the petition is bereft of merit.
Respondents
were indicted for violation of Section 3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019, which
provides:
Section. 3. Corrupt
Practices of Public Officer. – 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 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 through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inex[c]usable
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.
x x x x
To hold
a person liable under this section, the prosecution must establish beyond
reasonable doubt that:
(1)
the accused is a public officer or a private
person charged in conspiracy with the former;
(2)
the public officer commits the prohibited acts
during the performance of his or her official duties or in relation to his or
her public functions;
(3)
he or she causes undue injury to any party,
whether the government or a private party; and
(4)
the public officer has acted with manifest
partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.[15]
Undue means more than necessary; not proper; or illegal[16] while injury denotes any wrong or damage done to another, either in his person,
rights, reputation, or property.[17] In the context of these
definitions, jurisprudence[18] has interpreted “undue injury” to mean actual damage, similar to that
in civil law. Bad faith
on the other hand does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence, but
rather it implies the conscious doing of a wrong because of dishonest purpose
or moral obliquity.[19] Thus, mere bad faith or
partiality is not enough for one to be held liable under the law since the element
of bad faith or partiality must, in the first place, be evident. It is further required that undue injury impacts
upon a specified party.[20]
Respondents
dropped petitioner from the roll of employees in obedience to Section 2,[21] Rule XII of the Revised Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Other
Personnel Actions. For acting within the purview of law, no bad faith can be
ascribed to them. Neither was bad faith
evident when respondents failed to immediately carry out the Order of CSC-ARMM.
While the Order was executory after 15
days from receipt by respondents,[22] and the appeal did not stay execution,[23] mere delay in its implementation did not constitute evident bad faith.
Evident bad faith connotes a manifest
deliberate intent to do wrong or cause damage,[24] which we did not find present in this case. Even assuming that the action taken by
respondents was erroneous, it was certainly not criminal in nature.[25] At most, the liability of
respondents may be civil if not administrative. Section 83 of the Uniform Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service is pertinent:
Sec.
83. Non-Execution of Decision.
– Any officer or employee who willfully refuses or fails to implement the final
resolution, decision, order or ruling of the Commission to the prejudice of the
public service and the affected party, may be cited in contempt of the
Commission and administratively charged with conduct prejudicial to the best
interest of the service or neglect of duty.
Note, however, that this rule applies to a final
resolution, decision, order or ruling of the Commission, and not one on appeal.
As to petitioner’s allegation of undue injury, the ruling
of the Court in Llorente,
Jr. v. Sandiganbayan[26] is instructive:
After an employee, whose salary was withheld, fully
received her monetary claims, there is no longer any basis for compensatory
damages or undue injury, there being nothing more to compensate.[27]
Moreover, in the case of Jacinto v. Sandiganbayan,[28] we held
that:
Nevertheless, no real or
actual damage was suffered by her. She
got her withheld salary released. Her
name was restored in the plantilla. Thus,
the complainant did not suffer undue
injury as an element required by the law. Such an injury must be more than necessary,
excessive, improper or illegal.[29]
Hence, before CSC Proper issued Resolution No. 020312, petitioner
was reinstated in office and paid his salaries and benefits. Thus, no undue injury can be claimed in this
case. Unlike in actions for torts, undue
injury in Section 3(e) cannot be presumed even after a wrong or violation of a
right has been established.[30] 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 punishable under this section. Thus, it is required that the undue injury be
specified, quantified and proven to the point of moral certainty.[31]
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Resolutions dated
SO ORDERED.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
WE CONCUR:
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
|
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
|
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest 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.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice Chairperson |
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, 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.
|
|
REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice |
[1] Rollo, pp. 26-29. Penned by Associate Justice Teresita
Leonardo-De Castro, with Associate Justices Diosdado M. Peralta and Roland B.
Jurado concurring.
[2]
[3]
[4] Section 3. Corrupt Practices of Public Officer. – 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 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 through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inex[c]usable 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.
x
x x x
[5] Sandiganbayan rollo, pp. 1-2.
[6]
[7] Rollo, p. 71.
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12] Sec.
2. Dropping from the Rolls. Officers and employees who are either habitually
absent or have unsatisfactory or poor performance or have shown to be
physically and mentally unfit to perform their duties may be dropped from the
rolls subject to the following procedures:
2.1 Absence
without approved leave
“a. An officer or employee who is continuously absent without approved leave (AWOL) for at leas[t] thirty (30) working days shall be separated from the service or dropped from the rolls without prior notice. He shall, however, be informed of his separation from the service not later than (5) days from its effectivity which shall be sent to the address appearing on his 201 files or to his last known address;
x x x x
[13] G.R. No. 135775,
[14]
[15] Sistoza v. Desierto, G.R. No. 144784,
[16] H.C. Black, Black’s Law Dictionary 1528 (6th ed., 1990).
[17]
[18] Pecho v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
111399,
[19] Supra note 16, at 139.
[20] Sistoza v. Desierto, supra.
[21] Supra note 12.
[22] Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
Sec. 80. Execution of
Decision. – The decision of the Commission Proper or its Regional Offices
shall be immediately executory after fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof,
unless a motion for reconsideration is seasonably filed, in which case the
execution of the decision shall be held in abeyance.
[23] Rules Implementing Book V
of Executive Order No. 292 And Other Pertinent Civil Service Laws, Rule VII.
Sec. 13. Appeals in connection with personnel actions
shall be governed by the following:
x
x x x
(d) An appeal even seasonably filed shall not stay the action, order, decision or ruling of the MSPB or CSC Regional/Provincial/Field Office, as the case may be, on appeal except [when] otherwise ordered by the CSC.
x x x x
[24] Marcelo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
69983,
[25] Jacinto v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
84571,
[26] G.R. No. 122166,
[27]
[28] G.R. No. 84571,
[29]
[30] Llorente, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, supra at 399.
[31]