Professional Documents
Culture Documents
~upre1ne
~bilippines
QCottrt
:fflanila
FIRST DIVISION
DR. ROGER R. POSADAS and
DR. ROLANDO P. DA YCO,
Petitioners,
-versus-
Promulgated:
JUL 1 7 2013
X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DECISION
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
Petitioners assail their conviction for Violation of Section 3(e) of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019 (The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)
and Section 7(b) of R.A. No. 6713 (The Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees) under Decision 1 dated June
28, 2005 of the Sandiganbayan in Crim. Case Nos. 25465-66.
The Facts
Decision
Decision
8
9
Decision
without prior approval from the CSC, to determine the rates of honorarium
for government personnel participating as resource persons, coordinator, and
facilitator, in training programs. On the issue of double compensation, Atty.
Lambino pointed out that Dr. Posadas was appointed Project Director
because of managerial expertise, and his skills in supervising personnel who
are involved in an academic undertaking, and as Consultant because of his
expertise
in
technology
management.
Finding
these
explanations/justifications acceptable, Auditor Pulido lifted the notices of
suspension in September 1997.
However, even before the issuance of the suspension notices, then UP
President Dr. Emil Q. Javier, ordered an investigation on the basis of an
administrative complaint filed by Mrs. Ofelia L. Del Mundo, a staff of the
University Library who was detailed at the TMC as its Administrative
Officer. On July 24, 1996, President Javier created a Fact-Finding
Committee to gather, review and evaluate pertinent documents regarding
certain transactions of the TMC.10 After the conduct of a preliminary
investigation and finding a prima facie case against the petitioners, President
Javier issued the formal charges11 for Grave Misconduct and Abuse of
Authority. Pursuant to the Universitys Rules and Regulations on the
Discipline of Faculty Members and Employees approved at the 704th
Meeting of the Board of Regents on January 11, 1963,12 an Administrative
Disciplinary Tribunal (ADT) was constituted, chaired by Atty. Arturo E.
Balbastro, a faculty member of the UP College of Law.
On August 21, 1998, the ADT submitted its Report13 (ADT Case 96001) to President Javier. The ADT found petitioners guilty of serious or
grave misconduct and recommended the penalty of dismissal in accordance
with CSC Memorandum Circular No. 30, series of 1989, as well as Article
250 of the University Code. The Report likewise stated that the acts of
petitioners for which they were held administratively liable may warrant
prosecution under Section 3(h) and (i) of R.A. No. 3019. Under the Order14
dated August 25, 1998 signed by President Javier, petitioners were
dismissed from the service.
On September 3, 1998, Atty. Carmelita Yadao-Guno in her capacity
as General Counsel of UP formally endorsed the findings and
recommendations of the ADT to the Ombudsman.15 The case was docketed
as OMB-0-98-1843.
Meanwhile, the BOR at its 1126th meeting on November 26, 1998,
resolved petitioners appeal in ADT Case 96-001, as follows:
10
11
12
13
14
15
Decision
1. The Board affirmed the ADT decision finding the respondents guilty
of grave misconduct and imposed on them the penalty of forced
resignation with the accessory penalties defined in the Omnibus Rules
Implementing Book V of Executive Order 292 and other Pertinent
Civil Service Laws i.e., cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of all
leave credits and retirement benefits, and disqualification from
government service for one year.
2. If after one year they should reapply to the University, they must
render an apology to the University and their reappointments will be
subject to Board approval.
3. The respondents are permanently disqualified from holding any
administrative position in the University.
4. The decision takes effect immediately.16
Exhibit G, id.
Exhibit H, id.
Records, Vol. I, pp. 3-11.
Records, Vol. III, pp. 1-4.
Decision
Dr. Dayco and Dr. Posadas were duly arraigned on June 15, 2000 and
May 28, 2001, respectively, both pleading not guilty to the charges against
them.20
Ruling of the Sandiganbayan
After due proceedings, the Sandiganbayan rendered its Decision21
dated June 28, 2005, the decretal portion of which reads:
20
21
Decision
22
Id. at 70.
Decision
23
Decision
Decision
10
Posadas. Dr. Dayco did not even gain anything from his designation of Dr.
Posadas. Thus, in the absence of clear and convincing proof, petitioners
cannot be held liable as conspirators.
Our Ruling
The petition has no merit.
Notice of Hearingin Motions
forReconsiderationIs Mandatory
Contrary to petitioners stance, the 2002 Revised Internal Rules of the
Sandiganbayan requires a motion for reconsideration to be set for hearing, as
it provides under Rule VII:
SECTION 1. Motion Day. - Except for motions which may be
acted upon ex parte, all motions shall be scheduled for hearings on a
Friday, or if that day is a non-working holiday, on the next working day.
Motions requiring immediate action may be acted upon on shorter
notice.
In appealed cases, the provisions of Sec. 3, Rule 49 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, on Motions shall apply. (Emphasis
supplied.)
24
25
Rule XII.
Supra note 23, at 576-578.
Decision
11
Decision
12
Id. at 6-8.
Decision
13
3. That his action caused any undue injury to any party, including the
government, or giving any private party unwarranted benefits,
advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions.28
29
30
31
32
Decision
14
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Llorente, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, id. at 843, citing Spiegel v. Beacon Participations, 8 NE 2nd Series,
895, 1007.
Id., citing Air France v. Carrascoso, No. L-21438, September 28, 1966, 18 SCRA 155, 166-167.
Id., citing Marcelo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 69983, May 14, 1990, 185 SCRA 346.
G.R. No. 111399, November 14, 1994, 238 SCRA 116, 133.
Cabrera v. Sandiganbayan, supra note 29, at 364-365, citing Jacinto v. Sandiganbayan, supra note 28,
at 27 and Llorente v. Sandiganbayan, supra note 32, at 838.
Id. at 364.
MOA, Sec. 19, Exhibit 24, folder of exhibits (Defense).
TSN, January 7, 2002, pp. 14-16, 18-19.
Decision
15
Decision
16
Decision
17
APPOINTMENT/PERSONNELACTION
43
Published in 2003.
Decision
18
Board of Regents
President
Chancellor
Vice Chancellor
for Academic
Affairs
Vice
Chancellor for
Administration
Vice
Chancellor for
Student Affairs
Vice Chancellor
for Community
Affairs
University Council
Vice Chancellor
for Research and
Development
Deans
Faculty
44
See Re: Gross Violation of Civil Service Law on the Prohibition Against Dual Employment and
Double Compensation in the Government Service Committed by Mr. Eduardo V. Escala, SC Chief
Judicial Staff Officer, Security Division, Office of Administrative Services, A.M. No. 2011-04-SC, July
5, 2011, 653 SCRA 141, 149-150.
Decision
19
45
CSC Memorandum Circular No. 40, s. 1998, as amended by CSC Memorandum Circular No. 15, s.
1998.
Decision
20
46
47
48
49
50
51
Decision
21
53
54
See COA Circular No. 95-001 dated January 20, 1995 citing Office Memorandum No. 55, series of
1993 of the CSC relative to the new policies on appointment.
CSC Resolution No. 95-6939 (Pagaduan v. Malonzo) dated November 2, 1995, cited in Justice Arturo
D. Brions Dissenting Opinion in A.M. No. 10-9-15-SC, Re: Request of (Ret.) Chief Justice Artemio V.
Panganiban for Recomputation of His Creditable Service for the Purpose of Re-computing His
Retirement Benefits, February 12, 2013.
Query re: Consultancy, Mayumi Juris A. Luna.
Decision
22
Since Dr. Posadas and Dr. Dayco entered into the contract for
consultancy services for the TMC Project without prior permission from the
University President, the Sandiganbayan ruled that they violated Section
7(b) of R.A. No. 6713.
Petitioners contend that the section of the University Code cited by
the Sandiganbayan had already been superseded by the guidelines on outside
activities promulgated by the BOR at its 1031st Meeting on June 28, 1990.
Thus, in the Faculty Manual of the University of the Philippines Diliman
while the consultancy at TMC Project falls under the coverage of outside
activities, prior authorization by the University President is no longer
required. The pertinent provisions of the manual read:
10.3
Decision
23
Decision
24
Lazarte, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan (First Division), G.R. No. 180122, March 13, 2009, 581 SCRA 431, 450.
Guy v. People, G.R. Nos. 166794-96, 166880-82 & 167088-90, March 20, 2009, 582 SCRA 107, 125,
citing People v. Quinao, et al., 336 Phil. 475, 488-489 (1997) and People v. Layno, 332 Phil. 612, 629
(1996).
Decision
25
Penalty
Any person guilty of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 is
punishable with imprisonment for not less than six (6) years and one (1)
month nor more than fifteen (15) years and perpetual disqualification from
public office.58Thus, the penalty imposed by the Sandiganbayan which is an
indeterminate penalty of nine (9) years and one day as minimum and twelve
(12) years as maximum, with the accessory penalty of perpetual
disqualification from public office, is in accord with law. Petitioners shall
also indemnify the Government of the Republic of the Philippines the
amount of THREE HUNDRED THIRTY SIX THOUSAND PESOS
(P336,000.00) representing the compensation/salaries paid to Dr. Posadas as
TMC Project Director.
As to the offense defined in Section 7(b) of R.A. No. 6713, Section 11
of said law provides that violations of Section 7 shall be punishable with
imprisonment not exceeding five (5) years, or a fine not exceeding five
thousand pesos (P5,000), or both, and, in the discretion of the court,
disqualification to hold public office. The Sandiganbayan imposed the
maximum penalty of five (5) years imprisonment and disqualification to
hold public office.
The Court is aware of the sentiments of the succeeding BOR who
agonized while deliberating whether to readmit petitioners into the faculty of
UP Diliman, with majority of the Regents lamenting the loss of two of its
distinguished intellectuals and scientists who had served the University for
so long despite the meager compensation UP has to offer compared to
57
58
ADT Report in re: ADT Case No. 96-001, p. 15, Exhibit A-6, folder of exhibits (Prosecution).
Sec. 9, R.A. No. 3019;Sison v. People, G.R. Nos. 170339, 170398-403, March 9, 2010, 614 SCRA
670, 682.
Decision
26
~~.V::::-1-L-'~~L-----:~
Associate
WE CONCUR:
ENDOZA
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice
59
60
61
Transcription on the case of Dr. Roger Posadas, 11501h BOR meeting, May 24, 200 I, Exhibit "53,"
folder of exhibits (Defense)
Duque Ill v. Veloso, G.R. No. 196201, June 19, 2012, 673 SCRA 676, 687, citing Japson v. Civil
Service Commission, G.R. No. 189479, April 12,2011,648 SCRA 532,545.
ld.
Decision
27
ATTESTATION
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.
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitutim1 and the
Division Acting Chairperson's Attestation, I cer1ify 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.
}.