Velasco vs. The Sandiganbayan

An Information for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 sufficiently charges the offense when it alleges the three essential elements: the accused is a public officer discharging official functions; he acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and his action caused undue injury or gave unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference. A municipal mayor may be required to implement a final CSC resolution dismissing a municipal employee even if he was not a party to the CSC case, provided he knew of the resolution and no stay order was issued; failure to verify finality or a stay order constitutes gross negligence.

At the time material to the case, Pacifico C. Velasco was the Municipal Mayor of Bacarra, Ilocos Norte; Emmanuel Agonoy was its Municipal Engineer; and Lorna S. Dumayag was its Municipal Treasurer. The dispute implicated the Civil Service Commission's disciplinary authority over local government employees, the mayor's duty under Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code) and the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service to enforce final CSC resolutions, and Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, which penalizes giving unwarranted benefits through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.

On September 21, 1999, the Civil Service Commission issued a Resolution in CSC Case No. 99-2137 ordering the dismissal of Engr. Emmanuel Agonoy, Municipal Engineer of Bacarra, Ilocos Norte, for gross neglect of duty. Agonoy did not file a motion for reconsideration; instead, he filed a petition for review in the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 55596. Despite knowing of the CSC Resolution, Mayor Pacifico C. Velasco allowed Agonoy to report for work as Municipal Engineer. On October 2, 1999, Velasco issued a Memorandum to Municipal Treasurer Lorna S. Dumayag, informing her that she had no reason not to pay Agonoy’s salaries and other benefits in his capacity as Municipal Engineer and directing her to pay them until the Supreme Court had finally decided the case. Agonoy continued reporting for duty from November 11, 1999.

On August 18, 2000, the Court of Appeals denied Agonoy’s petition for review; his motion for reconsideration was denied on September 20, 2000. Agonoy then filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, docketed as G.R. No. 145016. On October 17, 2000, Velasco issued another Memorandum to Dumayag, directing her to immediately release Agonoy’s salary, Representation and Transportation Allowance (RATA), and other benefits. Velasco again told the treasurer that she had no right to withhold such benefits and directed their release until the Supreme Court, as the final court of last recourse, gave its final judgment.

On December 4, 2000, the Supreme Court resolved to deny Agonoy’s petition for review. Agonoy resigned as Municipal Engineer on February 28, 2001. The Supreme Court’s Resolution dismissing the petition became final and executory on May 10, 2001. According to the Court, Agonoy did not file any motion for reconsideration of the CSC Resolution, and while he filed petitions for review in the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, no stay order was issued by either court in his favor. As a consequence of Velasco’s memoranda, the municipal treasurer remitted Agonoy’s salary, RATA, and other benefits totaling ₱375,168.00.

On March 18, 2002, Philip Corpus Velasco, Vice Mayor of Bacarra, filed a Complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman against Mayor Velasco, Agonoy, and Dumayag for violation of Republic Act No. 3019. In a Resolution dated April 25, 2003, the Ombudsman found probable cause against Mayor Velasco for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 and filed an Information with the Sandiganbayan. The case against Agonoy was dismissed because he had resigned; the Ombudsman absolved Dumayag on the finding that she had merely obeyed the Mayor’s orders. The Information charged that on or about September 21, 1999, Velasco, as Mayor, acting with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence, gave unwarranted benefits to Agonoy by allowing him to continue employment as Municipal Engineer and receive salaries, RATA, and other benefits from November 1, 1999 to February 28, 2001, totaling ₱375,168.00, despite knowing that Agonoy had been dismissed by CSC Resolution No. 992137 on September 21, 1999, to the damage and prejudice of the government.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioner contended that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion and acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in not quashing the Information on the ground that its allegations do not constitute the offense charged.
• Insufficiency of the Information: Petitioner insisted that although the Information alleged his awareness of the September 21, 1999 CSC Resolution dismissing Agonoy, it did not allege that he was served with a copy of the resolution and directed to implement it; he claimed these allegations are essential elements of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019.
• Non-party to CSC Case: Petitioner argued that he was not bound to implement the CSC Resolution because he was not a party to CSC Case No. 99-2137 and did not receive a directive from the CSC ordering him to implement it.
• Non-executory Resolution: Petitioner maintained that the CSC Resolution was not immediately executory, and that until the Supreme Court resolution denying Agonoy’s petition became final and executory, he could not be compelled to implement the CSC Resolution.
• Absence of Manifest Partiality, Evident Bad Faith, or Gross Inexcusable Negligence: Petitioner argued that allowing Agonoy to report for work and ordering payment of his salary, RATA, and other benefits did not give unwarranted benefits or undue advantage or preference through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; he further averred that he could be administratively, civilly, or criminally charged if he relieved Agonoy and refused to give him his salary, RATA, and other benefits.

• Duty to Enforce CSC Resolution: The Office of the Special Prosecutor averred that although petitioner was not a party in CSC Case No. 99-2137, he was bound to enforce the CSC Resolution of September 21, 1999 as Municipal Mayor of Bacarra and may even be cited for contempt for his refusal to do so.
• Immediate Executory Nature: The OSP maintained that the CSC Resolution was immediately executory because Agonoy did not file a motion for reconsideration, and that Agonoy’s filing of a petition for review with the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court did not stop the execution of the resolution.
• Manifest Partiality, Evident Bad Faith, or Gross Inexcusable Negligence: The OSP argued that by issuing his memoranda to the Municipal Treasurer, petitioner acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence and gave unwarranted benefits to Agonoy.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion or acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in denying the Supplemental Motion to Quash the Information.
• Sufficiency of the Information: Whether the Information alleged all the essential elements of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019.
• Duty to Implement the CSC Resolution: Whether a municipal mayor who was not a party to the CSC case may be required to implement the CSC Resolution dismissing a municipal employee, where he knew of the resolution and no stay order was issued.
• Gross Inexcusable Negligence: Whether petitioner’s failure to verify whether Agonoy filed a motion for reconsideration or secured a stay order before issuing the memoranda constituted gross inexcusable negligence under Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: No. The Sandiganbayan did not gravely abuse its discretion; the Information sufficiently charged violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019.
• Sufficiency of the Information: Yes. The Information alleged the three essential elements under Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, as enumerated in Librada M. Cabrera, et al. vs. Sandiganbayan.
• Duty to Implement the CSC Resolution: Yes. A municipal mayor must enforce a final CSC resolution even if he was not a party to the CSC case, provided he knew of the resolution and no stay order was issued.
• Gross Inexcusable Negligence: Yes. Petitioner’s failure to ascertain whether Agonoy filed a motion for reconsideration or secured a stay order before issuing the memoranda constituted gross negligence.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: The Sandiganbayan’s denial of the motion to quash was affirmed because the Information contained all essential elements of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019. The Court quoted Section 3(e) and relied on Librada M. Cabrera, et al. vs. Sandiganbayan, which enumerated the elements and explained that there are two modes of violation: causing undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference. The accused may be charged under either mode or both. Quibal vs. Sandiganbayan held that the disjunctive term “or” connotes that either act qualifies as a violation. The Information charged petitioner under two alternative modes, and the Sandiganbayan correctly found the allegations sufficient. Thus, no grave abuse of discretion attended its denial of the motion to quash.
• Sufficiency of the Information: The Information alleged that petitioner was a public officer, the Municipal Mayor of Bacarra, committing the crime in relation to and taking advantage of his official functions; that he acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and that he gave unwarranted benefits to Agonoy by allowing him to continue employment as Municipal Engineer and receive salaries, RATA, and other benefits from November 1, 1999 to February 28, 2001, totaling ₱375,168.00, despite knowing that Agonoy had been dismissed by CSC Resolution No. 992137 on September 21, 1999, to the damage and prejudice of the government. These allegations correspond to the elements of Section 3(e). The absence of an allegation that petitioner was served a copy of the CSC Resolution and expressly directed to implement it did not render the Information defective, because the Court found that knowledge of the resolution sufficed and the Information alleged such knowledge.
• Duty to Implement the CSC Resolution: Under Section 444(b)(x) of Republic Act No. 7160, the municipal mayor must ensure that all executive officials and employees of the municipality faithfully discharge their duties and functions as provided by law. Under Section 83 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, as implemented by CSC Resolution No. 99-1936, any officer or employee who willfully refuses or fails to implement the final resolution, decision, order, or ruling of the CSC may be cited for contempt and administratively charged. It is not necessary that the implementing officer be a party to the CSC case. Implementation requires that a copy of the CSC Resolution be furnished to the implementing agency, or that the agency had knowledge thereof, and that the resolution is final and executory. Section 80 provides that CSC decisions are immediately executory after fifteen days from receipt unless a motion for reconsideration is seasonably filed, in which case execution is held in abeyance. Petitioner knew of the CSC Resolution even before he was officially furnished a copy and admitted such knowledge in his memoranda. He should have known that absent a motion for reconsideration, the resolution would become executory and he would be mandated to enforce it. If Agonoy had filed a petition for review and a court had issued a stay of execution under Section 82 of the Uniform Rules and Section 12, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, petitioner could not be faulted for allowing Agonoy to continue working and receiving compensation. However, Agonoy did not file a motion for reconsideration, and no stay order was issued by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. Petitioner therefore defied the CSC Resolution by allowing Agonoy to report for work and ordering payment of his salary, RATA, and other benefits through the October 2, 1999 and October 17, 2000 memoranda.
• Gross Inexcusable Negligence: Although the records did not show that petitioner was informed that Agonoy did not file a motion for reconsideration, prudence dictated that he ascertain whether Agonoy had done so. He should have at least attempted to verify whether Agonoy secured a stay order from the Court of Appeals before issuing the memoranda. His failure to do so constituted gross negligence. As a consequence of the memoranda, the municipal treasurer remitted Agonoy’s salary, RATA, and other benefits totaling ₱375,168.00, giving unwarranted benefits to Agonoy and causing undue injury to the government.

• Elements of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 — The essential elements are: (1) the accused is a public officer discharging administrative, judicial, or official functions; (2) he acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or inexcusable negligence; and (3) his action caused undue injury to any party, including the Government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the discharge of his functions. The Court applied these elements to the Information and found them all alleged.
• Two modes of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 — A public official may violate Section 3(e) either by causing undue injury to any party, including the Government, or by giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference. The accused may be charged under either mode or both; the disjunctive term “or” means either act qualifies as a violation. The Information charged petitioner under two alternative modes, and this was sufficient.
• Duty to implement final CSC resolutions — Any officer or employee who willfully refuses or fails to implement the final resolution, decision, order, or ruling of the Civil Service Commission may be cited for contempt and administratively charged. It is not necessary that the implementing officer be a party to the CSC case. Implementation requires that a copy of the CSC Resolution be furnished to the implementing agency, or that the agency had knowledge thereof, and that the resolution is final and executory. The Court applied this doctrine because petitioner knew of the CSC Resolution and no stay order was issued.
• Immediate executory nature of CSC decisions — CSC decisions are immediately executory after fifteen days from receipt unless a motion for reconsideration is seasonably filed, in which case execution is held in abeyance. The filing of a petition for review or certiorari does not stop execution unless a restraining order or injunction is issued. The Court applied this because Agonoy did not file a motion for reconsideration and no stay order was issued, so petitioner was bound to implement the dismissal.
• Gross inexcusable negligence in enforcing CSC resolutions — A municipal mayor’s failure to verify whether a dismissed employee filed a motion for reconsideration or secured a stay order before allowing continued employment and payment of salaries and benefits constitutes gross negligence. The Court applied this to petitioner’s issuance of the memoranda, which resulted in the payment of ₱375,168.00 and caused undue injury to the government.

• "The essential elements of violation of Section 3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019 are as follows: 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." — This passage states the canonical elements of Section 3(e) as cited from Librada M. Cabrera, et al. vs. Sandiganbayan, and supplies the framework for testing the sufficiency of the Information.
• "It is, thus, not necessary that the officer or employee who willfully refuses or fails to implement such final resolution be a party to the case which was resolved by the CSC or by its Regional Office." — This passage establishes that the duty to implement a final CSC resolution is not limited to parties in the CSC case, a key point against petitioner’s argument that he was not bound because he was not a party.
• "However, in order for such resolution to be implemented, it is required that a copy of the CSC Resolution be furnished to the implementing agency, or that such agency had knowledge thereof. It is also required that the subject CSC Resolution is final and executory." — This passage defines the conditions for the duty to implement a CSC resolution and explains why petitioner’s admitted knowledge and the resolution’s finality made him bound to enforce it.
• "The petitioner should have at least attempted to verify whether Agonoy was able to secure a stay order from the CA before issuing such memoranda. Indeed, the petitioner’s failure to do so constitutes gross negligence on his part." — This passage is the ratio for the finding of gross negligence, which supplied the second element of the Section 3(e) charge.

• Librada M. Cabrera, et al. vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 162314-17, October 25, 2004 — Cited by the Court for the essential elements of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 and for the rule that there are two modes of violation, either of which or both may be charged.
• Quibal vs. Sandiganbayan, 244 SCRA 224 (1995) — Cited for the rule that the disjunctive term “or” in Section 3(e) connotes that either causing undue injury or giving unwarranted benefits qualifies as a violation.

• Section 3(e), Republic Act No. 3019 — Defines the corrupt practice of causing undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; this was the offense charged in the Information.
• Section 444(b)(x), Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code) — Mandates the municipal mayor to ensure that all executive officials and employees of the municipality faithfully discharge their duties and functions as provided by law; the Court used this to establish petitioner’s duty to enforce the CSC Resolution.
• Section 83, Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, as implemented by CSC Resolution No. 99-1936 — Provides that any officer or employee who willfully refuses or fails to implement the final resolution, decision, order, or ruling of the Commission may be cited for contempt and administratively charged; the Court cited it to show that petitioner need not have been a party to the CSC case.
• Section 80, Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service — Provides that decisions of the Commission Proper or its Regional Offices are immediately executory after fifteen days from receipt unless a motion for reconsideration is seasonably filed, in which case execution is held in abeyance; the Court applied it to determine that the CSC Resolution became executory because Agonoy filed no motion for reconsideration.
• Section 82, Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service — Provides that the filing of a petition for review with the Court of Appeals or certiorari with the Supreme Court does not stop execution of a final decision of the Commission unless the court issues a restraining order or injunction; the Court cited it because no stay order was issued in Agonoy’s favor.
• Section 12, Rule 43, Rules of Court, as amended — Provides that an appeal shall not stay the award, judgment, final order, or resolution sought to be reviewed unless the Court of Appeals directs otherwise; the Court cited it in tandem with Section 82 to explain that no stay order existed.
• Rule 65, Rules of Court — The procedural basis for petitioner’s petition for certiorari seeking nullification of the Sandiganbayan Resolutions; the Court denied the petition for lack of merit.

Puno (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Tinga, and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.