~upre1ne QCottrt
:fflanila
FIRST DIVISION
BERSAMIN, J,
Acting Chairperson,
ABAD,*
-versus- VILLARAMA, JR.,
MENDOZA,** and
REYES, JJ.
DECISION
The Facts
In a letter dated July 30, 1995, the President of Hua Qiao University
in Fujian Province, China invited Dr. Posadas and a delegation from UP
Dilimanto visit on October 30 to November 6, 1995. On October 5, 1995,
then Senior Deputy Executive Secretary Leonardo A. Quisumbing (retired
Member of this Court) issued the Authority toTravel for the UP Diliman
delegationheaded by Dr. Posadas. Among those who joined the delegation
were Dr. Amaryllis Torres and Dr. Rosario Yu, UPDiliman’s Vice-
Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Vice-Chancellor for Student Affairs,
respectively.4Under Administrative Order (AO) No. 95-170 dated October
24, 1995, Dr. Posadas designated petitioner Dr. Rolando P. Dayco (Dr.
Dayco), Vice-Chancellor for Administrative Affairs, as Officer-In-Charge
2
Exhibits “2” – “2-a,” folder of exhibits (Defense).
3
Exhibit “24,” id.
4
Exhibit “5,” id.
Decision 3 G.R. Nos. 168951 & 169000
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.
On August 21, 1998, the ADT submitted its Report13 (ADT Case 96-
001) 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.
10
Exhibit “50,” id.
11
Exhibits “A-4” and “A-5,” folder of exhibits (Prosecution).
12
Exhibit “A-2,” id.
13
Exhibit “A-6,” id.
14
Exhibit “A-3,” id.
15
Exhibit “A,” id.
Decision 5 G.R. Nos. 168951 & 169000
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.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
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
20
Records, Vol. I, pp. 89 and 219.
21
Rollo, pp. 48-71.
Decision 7 G.R. Nos. 168951 & 169000
SO ORDERED.22
22
Id. at 70.
Decision 8 G.R. Nos. 168951 & 169000
The Issues
Petitioners’ Arguments
Petitioners argue that the July 19, 2005 Resolution denying their
motion for reconsideration is not only baseless, but capricious, arbitrary and
most unjust because the Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan does
not require that the motion for reconsideration be set for hearing. They cite
the case of Alvarez v. Sandiganbayan23 where this Court ruled that motions
for reconsideration of decisions or final orders of the Sandiganbayan are not
governed by Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, as these may be filed within 15
days from promulgation or notice of the judgment or final order “upon the
grounds, in the form and subject to the requirements, for motions for new
trial in criminal cases under Rule 121 of the Rules of Court.”
On the charges of graft, petitioners assert that they did not act with
bad faith, manifest partiality or gross inexcusable negligence. They reiterate
that Dr. Dayco’s designation as OIC Chancellor was adjusted for one day
merely to accommodate the change in the official travel schedule of Dr.
Posadas to China. The appointment of Dr. Posadas as TMC Project Director
and Consultant was a valid appointment and was made retroactive for no
other reason than to synchronize the activities relative to the TMC Project
with the project schedule as approved by the funding agency. The power of
appointment was within the power of the Chancellor to delegate to the OIC
Chancellor, it not being expressly prohibited by the University rules. Such
practice, in fact, is not an unusual occurrence in UP.
23
278 Phil. 566, 577 (1991).
Decision 9 G.R. Nos. 168951 & 169000
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
24
Rule XII.
25
Supra note 23, at 576-578.
Decision 11 G.R. Nos. 168951 & 169000
SO ORDERED.
xxxx
26
G.R. No. 181354, February 27, 2013.
Decision 12 G.R. Nos. 168951 & 169000
xxxx
This Court has indeed held, time and again, that under Sections 4
and5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, the requirement is mandatory.
Failure tocomply with the requirement renders the motion defective.
“As a rule, amotion without a notice of hearing is considered pro
forma and does notaffect the reglementary period for the appeal or
the filing of the requisitepleading.”
27
Id. at 6-8.
Decision 13 G.R. Nos. 168951 & 169000
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
(2) that said public officer commits the prohibited acts during the
performance of his or her official duties or in relation to his or her
public positions;
(3) that he or she causes undue injury to any party, whether the
government or a private party; and
(4) that the public officer has acted with manifest partiality, evident bad
faith or gross inexcusable negligence.
28
Jacinto v. Sandiganbayan, 258-A Phil. 20, 26 (1989).
29
484 Phil. 350, 360(2004).
30
314 Phil. 66 (1995).
31
Velasco v. Sandiganbayan, 492 Phil. 669, 677(2005).
32
350 Phil. 820, 837 (1998).
Decision 14 G.R. Nos. 168951 & 169000
In this case, that petitioners acted in evident bad faith was duly
established by the evidence. We recall that the MOA was executed on
September 18, 1995 and became effective upon the signature of the parties.39
Between that date and the China trip scheduled in the first week of
November (the invitation was dated July 30, 1995), Dr. Posadas could have
already appointed the Project Director and Consultant as indeed the
retroactive appointment was even justified by them because supposedly
“project activities” have already started by September 18, 1995. And yet,
he waited until the China trip so that in his absence the designated OIC
Chancellor, Dr. Dayco, would be the one to issue the appointment.
Apparently, Dr. Posadas’ appointment by Dr. Dayco in an OIC capacity was
pre-conceived. Prof. Jose Tabbada testified that when he was summoned by
Dr. Posadas to his office, the latter asked him how he (Posadas) could be
appointed TMC Project Director. He then suggested that Dr. Dayco as OIC
Chancellor can appoint him to the position and even drafted the memo for
this purpose. He admitted that he gave such advice with some reservations
but it turned out to have been pursued by petitioners.40
33
Llorente, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, id. at 843, citing Spiegel v. Beacon Participations, 8 NE 2nd Series,
895, 1007.
34
Id., citing Air France v. Carrascoso, No. L-21438, September 28, 1966, 18 SCRA 155, 166-167.
35
Id., citing Marcelo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 69983, May 14, 1990, 185 SCRA 346.
36
G.R. No. 111399, November 14, 1994, 238 SCRA 116, 133.
37
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.
38
Id. at 364.
39
MOA, Sec. 19, Exhibit “24,” folder of exhibits (Defense).
40
TSN, January 7, 2002, pp. 14-16, 18-19.
Decision 15 G.R. Nos. 168951 & 169000
x x x x42
41
Exhibits “19,”“19-A,”“19-B,”“20,”“20-A,”“20-B,”“21” and “21-A,”folder of exhibits (Defense).
42
Exhibit “25,” id.
Decision 16 G.R. Nos. 168951 & 169000
xxxx
to the same extent and under the same conditions stipulated in II, C
below for the delegated authority of the Chancellor of an
autonomous University to appoint.
TYPES OF APPOINTMENT/PERSONNELACTION
COVERED:
43
Published in 2003.
Decision 18 G.R. Nos. 168951 & 169000
Board of Regents
President
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 G.R. Nos. 168951 & 169000
xxxx
45
CSC Memorandum Circular No. 40, s. 1998, as amended by CSC Memorandum Circular No. 15, s.
1998.
Decision 20 G.R. Nos. 168951 & 169000
46
Exhibit “55-A,”folder of exhibits (Defense).
47
See CSC Resolution No. 030102 dated January 22, 2003 (Edmundo R. Calo).
48
Chua v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 88979, February 7, 1992, 206 SCRA 65, 74.
49
Rule III, Sec. 2,d (e), CSC Memorandum Circular No. 40, Series of 1998.
50
Sec. 3(4), P.D. No. 1445.
51
Sec. 4(3), id.
Decision 21 G.R. Nos. 168951 & 169000
In Criminal Case No. 25466, the charge involves the private practice
of profession prohibited under Section 7(b) of R.A. No. 6713, otherwise
known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials
and Employees, by appointing Dr. Posadas as Consultant of the TMC
Project. Said provision reads:
SEC. 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. – In addition to acts
and omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed in the
Constitution and existing laws, the following shall constitute prohibited
acts and transactions of any public official and employee and are hereby
declared to be unlawful:
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
52
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.
53
CSC Resolution No. 95-6939 (Pagaduan v. Malonzo) dated November 2, 1995, cited in Justice Arturo
D. Brion’s 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.
54
Query re: Consultancy, Mayumi Juris A. Luna.
Decision 22 G.R. Nos. 168951 & 169000
3. The consultancy job must not conflict or tend to conflict with his/her
official functions; and
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.
10.3.1 Coverage
Conspiracy
Penalty
57
ADT Report in re: ADT Case No. 96-001, p. 15, Exhibit “A-6,” folder of exhibits (Prosecution).
58
Sec. 9, R.A. No. 3019;Sison v. People, G.R. Nos. 170339, 170398-403, March 9, 2010, 614 SCRA
670, 682.
Decision 26 G.R. Nos. 168951 & 169000
SO ORDERED.
.......
~~.V::::-1-L-'~~L-----:~
Associate
WE CONCUR:
ENDOZA
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice
59
Transcription on the case of Dr. Roger Posadas, 11501h BOR meeting, May 24, 200 I, Exhibit "53,"
folder of exhibits (Defense)
60
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.
61 ld.
Decision 27 G.R. Nos. 168951 & 169000
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.
}.