Feliciano v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involves charges against Ranulfo C. Feliciano, General Manager of the Leyte Metropolitan Water District (LMWD), and Dr. Cesar A. Aquitania, Vice-Chairperson of the LMWD Board of Directors. Feliciano was accused of malversation of public funds, allegedly misappropriating P506,246.26 by claiming and receiving salary and allowances for a period he had not yet assumed office. Both Feliciano and Aquitania, along with other LMWD officials, were also charged with violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) for allegedly approving Resolution No. 98-33, which unlawfully increased Feliciano's monthly salary from P18,749.00 to P57,146.00, thereby giving him unwarranted benefits. Procedural History: The Office of the Ombudsman filed two Informations on October 25, 2004, leading to Criminal Case Nos. 28179 and 28180 before the Sandiganbayan. Several co-accused died during the proceedings, leaving Feliciano and Aquitania as the sole remaining respondents. After arraignment and joint trial, the Sandiganbayan rendered a Decision on January 27, 2015, finding both petitioners guilty of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and sentencing them to imprisonment and perpetual disqualification from public office. Feliciano was also found guilty of malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, with a sentence of imprisonment, a fine equivalent to the misappropriated amount, and perpetual special disqualification. The Sandiganbayan subsequently denied their respective motions for reconsideration in a Resolution dated August 4, 2015. The Petition: Petitioners Feliciano and Aquitania filed separate Petitions for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking to annul the Sandiganbayan's decision and resolution. They argued that the prosecution failed to prove conspiracy and their guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and that they acted in good faith, believing the LMWD Board of Directors had the authority to adjust Feliciano's salary under Presidential Decree No. 198. The Supreme Court consolidated the petitions and, finding a misapprehension of facts in the assailed decision, admitted the questions of fact raised. The Court ultimately reversed and set aside the Sandiganbayan's rulings, acquitting both petitioners. The Court reasoned that at the time of the resolution's passage, there was a genuine question regarding the salary limitations for water district general managers, and the Board acted on an honest belief of its authority. Furthermore, Feliciano did not participate in the resolution's passage and merely approved the fund release based on the Board's directive, and the malversation charge lacked the element of improper appropriation as the payment was made pursuant to the Board's resolution.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that petitioners acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or inexcusable negligence in approving Resolution No. 98-33, thereby violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. Whether petitioner Feliciano is guilty of malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the RPC for appropriating P506,246.26.
Ruling
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petitions, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Sandiganbayan, and ACQUITTED petitioners Dr. Cesar A. Aquitania and Ranulfo C. Feliciano of the crimes charged.
Ratio Decidendi
On the charge of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019: The Court found the second element of the offense, that the accused acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or inexcusable negligence, to be wanting. The Board of Directors (BOD) acted on the "honest belief" that they had the authority to increase the salary of the General Manager pursuant to Section 23 of P.D. No. 198, which grants the BOD the power to define duties and fix compensation. Crucially, at the time of the passage of Resolution No. 98-33 on November 6, 1998, there was no categorical pronouncement from the Supreme Court clarifying whether the salary of a water district's General Manager was covered by the Salary Standardization Law (SSL). The Court's ruling in Engr. Mendoza v. Commission on Audit in 2013 was the first to reconcile the authority granted under P.D. No. 198 with the coverage of the SSL, holding that water districts are not exempt from the SSL unless their charter provides for such exemption. Therefore, the issuance of the resolution in 1998, based solely on the express grant of authority in P.D. No. 198 and in the absence of a clear prohibition, could not be considered as having been done with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. Petitioner Feliciano, who did not participate in the passing of the resolution, merely acted on the authority given by the BOD, making his approval of the fund release ministerial. On the charge of malversation of public funds: The Court held that petitioner Feliciano must also be acquitted of malversation. Since there was a basis upon which the BOD of LMWD passed the resolution increasing his salary, there was no reason for Feliciano not to approve the release of payment pursuant to the board's authority. The powers of the General Manager emanate from and are secondary to that of the BOD. Therefore, the processing of the release of payment was ministerial on his part. The disbursement voucher was complete with supporting documents, all in accordance with the BOD's resolution. While the period covered by the payment (January 1, 1998 to September 26, 1998) overlapped with the LWUA takeover, the terms of the takeover primarily concerned LMWD's financial obligations to LWUA and did not empower LWUA to exercise managerial prerogatives over personnel management. The practice recognized by LWUA was that the General Manager appointed by LMWD retained their position and was entitled to remuneration. Thus, there was no basis to refuse the processing and release of payment at that time.
Main Doctrine
The issuance of Resolution No. 98-33, adjusting the salary of the General Manager of the Leyte Metropolitan Water District (LMWD) from P18,749.00 to P57,146.00, was done in the honest belief that the Board of Directors (BOD) had the authority to do so under Section 23 of P.D. No. 198. Given the lack of a categorical pronouncement at the time regarding the applicability of the Salary Standardization Law to water districts, and the express grant of authority to the BOD to fix compensation, the elements of manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or inexcusable negligence required for a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 were not sufficiently proven. Consequently, the charge of malversation of public funds also failed as the approval of the disbursement was based on a valid board resolution.