-versus-
Complaint-Affidavit
Page | 2
7. From incidents in the above-mentioned 30 August 2017 hearing that the
acts of the Respondent Labor Arbiter constitutes violation of Section 3(e) of
Republic Act no. 3019, misconduct, and oppression.
10. Atty. Trinidad even executed an Affidavit to this effect and attached the
same in the Motion for Reconsideration34 of the labor case filed by Complainant
before the National Labor Relations Commission (“NLRC”). This only proves
that CFSI is still suffering from the unlawful acts of Respondent evident in the
Decision he issued.
10. The unlawful acts of the Respondent is violative of section 3(e) R.A. 3019
or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act which reads:
11. It is all but clear that Respondent already made the Decision for the labor
case without even considering the gestures in good faith Complainant and Atty.
Trinidad. In the case of Fuentes vs. Ombudsman5 the Supreme Court ruled:
2 Please see a copy of the Decision dated 31 August 2018, by Respondent hereto attached as
Annex “B”.
3 Please see a copy of the Motion for Reconsideration dated 26 March 2018 hereto attached as
Annex ”C”.
4 Please see a copy of the Affidavit filed by Atty. Trinidad attached to the Motion for
Page | 3
In Gallego v. Sandiganbayan, the Court ruled that "unwarranted
means lacking adequate or official support; unjustified;
unauthorized; or without justification or adequate
reasons.”Advantage" means a more favorable or improved position
or condition; benefit or gain of any kind; benefit from course of
action. "Preference" signifies priority or higher evaluation or
desirability; choice or estimation above another.
Section (e) of Rep. Act No. 3019, which was approved by Congress
in Spanish reads:
(e) Causar algun perjuicio indebido a cualquiera, incluyendo al
Gobierno, o dar a alguna persona particular cualesquier beneficios,
vengaja o preferencia injustificados en el desempeño de sus
funciones administrativas judiciales de indole oficial con manifesta
parcialidad, evidente mala fe o crasa negligencia inexecusable. Esta
disposicion se aplicara a los funcionarios y empleados de oficinas o
de las corporaciones del gobierno encargados de otogar licencias o
permisos u otras concesiones.
"Perjuicio" means prejudice, mischief, injury, damages. Prejudice
means injury or damage, due to some judgment or action of another.
Mischief connotes a specific injury or damage caused by another.
"Indebido" means undue, illegal, immoral, unlawful, void of equity
and moderations.
In Pecho v. Sandiganbayan, the Court en banc defined injury
as "any wrong or damage done to another, either in his person,
or in his rights, reputation or property; the invasion of any
legally protected interests of another. It must be more than
necessary or are excessive, improper or illegal. It is required
that the undue injury caused by the positive or passive acts of
the accused be quantifiable and demonstrable and proven to
the point of moral certainty. Undue injury cannot be presumed
even after a wrong or a violation of a right has been
established.
12. Moreover, the case of Santos vs. People of the Philippines6
elucidates further the elements for violating section 3(e) of R.A. 3019, to wit:
Page | 4
“In Jacinto vs. Sandiganbayan the Court en banc enumerated the
essential elements of the crime punishable under the aforequoted
statutory provision, to wit:
1. The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative,
judicial or official functions;
2. He must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or
inexcusable negligence; and
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.
Page | 5
Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence which a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.”
15. Again, Respondent Gajardo oppressed Complainant and Atty. Trinidad
when he issued the Decision one day after the 30 August hearing. It is hard to
accept the issued Decision from Respondent when circumstances evidencing his
bias and partiality showed throughout the 30 August 2017 hearing and the
contents of the Decision which Complainant deemed to be without basis in facts
and in law. Respondent simply prejudged the Labor Complaint filed with his
office and monetary injury was suffered by Complainant and Atty. Trinidad as a
result.
16. Respondent also committed misconduct under the circumstances.
Misconduct as defined in Miro v. Mendoza8:
“Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite
rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross
negligence by a public officer. The misconduct is considered as
grave if it involves additional elements such as corruption or willful
intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules, which
must be proven by substantial evidence; otherwise, the misconduct
is only simple. Corruption, as an element of grave misconduct,
consists in the act of an official or fiduciary person who unlawfully
and wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some
benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the
rights of others”
17. By Respondent’s suspect and untoward behavior against Atty. Trinidad in
the 30 August 2017 hearing. Being the Labor Arbiter tasked assist the parties into
an amicable settlement, Respondent pretty much did the opposite. Showing
obvious unlawful behavior unbecoming of man in his position by berating Atty.
Trinidad for his perceived lack of legal knowledge almost mocking Atty. Trinidad
for his supposed shortcomings. This act confounded by the issuance of a
hastily made Decision only showed that Respondent’s treatment of Atty.
Trinidad resulted in great injury to Complainant not only by the hastily
issued Decision without basis in facts and in law but also it deprived
Complainant of someone who has a cold neutrality of an impartial judge.
Page | 6
18. In addition, by way of example or correction for the public good,
Respondent should be held for exemplary damages in the amount of P50,000.
Investigating Prosecutor
CERTIFICATION
Investigating Prosecutor
Page | 7
Page | 8