Velasco v. Sandiganbayan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Engr. Emmanuel Agonoy, Municipal Engineer of Bacarra, Ilocos Norte, was dismissed from service by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) on September 21, 1999, for gross neglect of duty. Despite knowledge of this resolution, petitioner Mayor Pacifico C. Velasco allowed Agonoy to continue reporting for work and issued memoranda directing the Municipal Treasurer to pay Agonoy's salaries and benefits. Agonoy's subsequent appeals to the Court of Appeals (CA) and the Supreme Court (SC) were denied, and no stay of execution was issued. The CSC resolution became final and executory on May 10, 2001, and Agonoy resigned on February 28, 2001. Procedural History: A complaint was filed before the Office of the Ombudsman against Mayor Velasco, Agonoy, and the Municipal Treasurer for violation of Republic Act No. 3019. The Ombudsman found probable cause against Mayor Velasco for violation of Section 3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019 and filed an Information with the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan denied Mayor Velasco's motion to quash the Information and his subsequent motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner Mayor Velasco filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the Sandiganbayan's resolutions, arguing that the Information did not constitute the offense charged as he was not a party to the CSC case, not officially furnished a copy of the resolution, and not directed to implement it. He contended that the CSC resolution was not immediately executory and that he could not be faulted for allowing Agonoy to work and receive pay.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in not quashing the Information for violation of Section 3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019. Whether the allegations in the Information constitute the offense of violation of Section 3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The assailed Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in not quashing the Information for violation of Section 3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019: The Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan's ruling that the Information contained all the essential elements of the crime charged. The petitioner, as Municipal Mayor, was mandated to enforce decisions and final resolutions of the CSC. Section 83 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides that an officer or employee who willfully refuses or fails to implement a final CSC resolution may be cited in contempt and administratively charged. It is not necessary for the implementing officer to be a party to the CSC case. The Court emphasized that the petitioner knew of the CSC Resolution dismissing Agonoy, and despite Agonoy not filing a motion for reconsideration, the petitioner allowed him to continue working and receiving benefits. The petitioner's failure to ascertain whether Agonoy had secured a stay order from the CA before issuing memoranda directing payment constituted gross negligence. This action resulted in Agonoy receiving unwarranted benefits totaling ₱375,168.00, causing undue injury to the government, thus fulfilling the elements of Section 3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019. On the issue of whether the allegations in the Information constitute the offense of violation of Section 3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019: The Court reiterated the essential elements of Section 3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019: (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. The Information alleged that petitioner Velasco, as Mayor, acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence in allowing Agonoy to continue employment and receive salaries and benefits despite knowing of Agonoy's dismissal by the CSC, thereby giving unwarranted benefits to Agonoy to the damage and prejudice of the government. The Court found that these allegations sufficiently established the elements of the offense, particularly the giving of unwarranted benefits and causing undue injury to the government.
Main Doctrine
A public officer who allows an employee dismissed by a Civil Service Commission (CSC) resolution to continue in service and receive salary and benefits, despite the absence of a stay order from higher courts, acts with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence, thereby giving unwarranted benefits and causing undue injury to the government, constituting a violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019.