Llorente, Jr. v.

Sandiganbayan
GR No. 122166
11 March 1998
Crimes Committed by Public Officers (Art. 203 to 245)
RA 3019, The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
Facts:
During the period of July 1990 to October 1991, Llorente, Jr., the Mayor of Sindangan,
Zamboanga del Norte, refuse to sign and approve the payrolls and vouchers representing the
payments of the salaries and other emoluments of Leticia G. Fuertes, as she failed to attach the
required money and property clearance to her vouchers, thereby causing undue injury to the
said Leticia G. Fuertes.
Fuertes filed a petition for Mandamus with Damages against Llorente, Jr., which he responded
with by making a compromise agreement where he 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.
After Fuertes’s monetary claims were already paid for. She still filed against Llorente, Jr. for
undue injury she received as 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.
Issue:
NO. Whether or not undue injury was brought upon Fuertes.
Ruling:
In this case, the complainant testified that her salary and allowance for the period beginning July
1990 were withheld, and that her family underwent financial difficulty which resulted from the
delay in the satisfaction of her claims. As regards her money claim, payment of her salaries
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, there 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 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.

Other than the amount of the withheld salaries and allowances which were 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. In Alejandro, the Court held that
the hospital employees were not caused undue injury, as they were in fact paid their salaries.