Title
Posadas vs. Sandiganbayan
Case
G.R. No. 168951
Decision Date
Jul 17, 2013
A university chancellor and OIC were convicted for appointing and receiving double compensation, violating anti-graft laws, resulting in imprisonment and disqualification.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 97898)

Applicable Law and Charges

Petitioners were charged under:

  • Section 3(e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019 (The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), for giving unwarranted benefits and causing undue injury to the government by effecting an unlawful appointment and double compensation.
  • Section 7(b) of R.A. No. 6713 (The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees), for engaging in unauthorized private practice of profession through an unapproved consultancy.

Facts Surrounding the Appointments and Payment

Dr. Posadas declined the initial nomination as TMC Director and designated Prof. Jose Tabbada as Acting Director. On September 18, 1995, the MOA was signed to fund the TMC Project, spearheaded and to be overseen by UP Diliman. Before Dr. Posadas’s official trip abroad, he designated Dr. Dayco as OIC Chancellor from October 30 to November 7, 1995. On November 7, Dr. Dayco appointed Dr. Posadas as Project Director and Consultant retroactive to September 18, 1995. Dr. Posadas received monthly honoraria and consultancy fees totaling P336,000 until May 1996. The Commission on Audit (COA) questioned these payments based on limits on honoraria, authority of appointment by an OIC, and the prohibition of double compensation.

Administrative and University Proceedings

COA suspended payments but later lifted suspensions after receiving legal justification from UP’s Chief Legal Officer, who argued the payments were consultancy fees exempt from certain compensation rules. However, UP President Emil Javier initiated a fact-finding investigation and administrative charges against the petitioners for grave misconduct and abuse of authority, leading to dismissal from service. The University's Board of Regents later modified the penalty to forced resignation with accessory penalties, including disqualification from holding administrative posts and forced one-year disqualification from government service. The petitioners withdrew their appeal before the Civil Service Commission (CSC).

Criminal Proceedings and Sandiganbayan Decision

Upon the Ombudsman’s order, the petitioners were criminally charged before the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Cases Nos. 25465-66. After trial, the Sandiganbayan found both petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of:

  • Violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, sentencing each to an indeterminate term of 9 years and 1 day to 12 years imprisonment plus perpetual disqualification from public office, and jointly ordered to indemnify the government P336,000.
  • Violating Section 7(b) of R.A. No. 6713, imposing the maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment and disqualification from holding public office.

The Sandiganbayan emphasized evident bad faith, as petitioners knew the OIC Chancellor’s authority was limited and did not extend to making appointments. The retroactive nature of the appointments and double compensation constituted undue injury to the government. It rejected the argument that the project’s funding from a foreign agency excluded it from being public funds, as UP’s management and auditing control impressed the funds with public character.

Procedural Issue on Motion for Reconsideration

The Sandiganbayan denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration because it was not set for hearing, as required by the Sandiganbayan’s Revised Internal Rules. The Supreme Court affirmed this procedural disposition, ruling that failure to set a motion for hearing renders the motion pro forma and effectively without legal effect. The requirement for notice and setting for hearing is mandatory under both the Sandiganbayan rules and pertinent Rules of Court provisions.

Legal Analysis on Appointment Authority and Dual Compensation

The Sandiganbayan correctly held, applying the 1987 Philippine Constitution and relevant laws, that:

  • An OIC enjoys limited administrative powers and does not have discretionary authority to appoint officials, especially significant ones like the Chancellor himself.
  • Delegation of appointment powers by the UP Board of Regents and related commission memoranda do not extend to an OIC appointing the Chancellor to a coterminous project position.
  • Multiple positions and double compensation by government officials are prohibited under Section 7, Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution, and relevant Civil Service and Omnibus Rules, unless authorized by law.
  • Retroactive appointments violate CSC Memorandum Circular No. 38, s. 1993, requiring appointments’ effectivity to be the date of issuance or actual assumption, and generally disallow retroactive effectivity dates.
  • The TMC Project Director position entailed managerial responsibilities inconsistent with mere consultancy or advisory roles exempt from civil service appointment rules; thus, the honoraria for this position represented compensation for employment requiring appointment approval.

On the Issue of Undue Injury and Manifest Bad Faith

To satisfy liability under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, the prosecution must establish that the public officers acted with evident bad faith, manifest partiality, or gross inexcusable negligence, and that their act caused undue injury to the government. The Court sustained that:

  • Evident bad faith involves a conscious doing of a wrong with dishonest purpose or moral obliquity.
  • Undue injury is more than mere damage; it is injury that is illegal, improper, or excessive, measurable and proven by evidence.
  • Petitioners acted with evident bad faith in fabricating an appointment procedure that circumvented proper authority, evidenced by deliberate timing of appointments during Dr. Posadas’s absence and knowledge of limitations on the OIC’s authority.
  • The payment of P336,000 to Dr. Posadas as honoraria and consultancy fees under invalid appointments harmed government funds impressed with public character.

Violation of Section 7(b) of R.A. No. 6713 (Unauthorized Private Practice)

Petitioners were convicted for engaging in private practice without authorization, as the consultancy contract for Dr. Posadas—being also UP Chancellor—required permission from the University President, not merely the Chancellor or OIC.

  • Consultancy services are considered private practice under the applicable civil service rules.
  • Government personnel must obtain prior authorization from their head of agency before engaging in consultancy to avoid conflict or impairment to official functions.
  • University regulations and the University Code require such approval, and petitioner’s failure to secure it violated prescribed ethical standards.

Conspiracy and Liability of Petitioners

The Court upheld the Sandiganbayan’s finding of conspiracy based on evidence of cooperative acts and mutual assistance in effecting invalid appointments and receiving unauthorized compensation. Actual express agreement is not necessary; the concurrence of acts pointing to a conspiracy suffices. Evidence showed that Dr. Dayco, as OIC Chancellor, authorized the appointments

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

    About Privacy Terms