Posadas v. Sandiganbayan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Dr. Roger R. Posadas (Chancellor of UP Diliman) and Dr. Rolando P. Dayco (Vice-Chancellor for Administrative Affairs) were convicted for violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and Section 7(b) of R.A. No. 6713. Dr. Posadas, while on official travel to China, designated Dr. Dayco as Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of UP Diliman. Upon Dr. Posadas' return, Dr. Dayco, on his last day as OIC, appointed Dr. Posadas as Project Director and Consultant for the Technology Management Center (TMC) Project, with retroactive effect to September 18, 1995. Dr. Posadas received monthly honoraria as Project Director and consultancy fees. The Commission on Audit (COA) initially suspended payments due to alleged excess honoraria, lack of legal basis for the OIC's appointment of the Chancellor, and potential double compensation. UP's Chief Legal Officer provided explanations that led COA to lift the suspension. However, an administrative investigation was initiated, leading to the dismissal of petitioners from service, later modified by the Board of Regents to forced resignation with accessory penalties. Procedural History: Following administrative charges and findings of grave misconduct and abuse of authority, petitioners were dismissed from service. The UP Board of Regents modified the penalty to forced resignation. The UP General Counsel endorsed the findings to the Ombudsman, who ordered the indictment of petitioners for violations of R.A. No. 3019 and R.A. No. 6713. Informations were filed before the Sandiganbayan. After trial, the Sandiganbayan found petitioners guilty and sentenced them to imprisonment and disqualification from public office, and to indemnify the government. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied for not being set for hearing. They then filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion and violation of due process. The Petition: Petitioners argued that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying their motion for reconsideration on a technicality and in convicting them based on unsupported facts and inapplicable rules. They contended that Dr. Dayco's designation as OIC was valid, the appointment of Dr. Posadas as Project Director and Consultant was proper and not a violation of rules against double compensation or holding multiple positions, and that no undue injury was caused to the government as the project was foreign-funded. They also claimed the charges were motivated by "university politics" and that Dr. Posadas possessed superior qualifications. Regarding the charge of unauthorized outside employment, they argued that UP rules did not require presidential clearance for consultancy work and that their actions were not prohibited outside employment.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration for failure to set it for hearing. Whether petitioners committed violations of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and Section 7(b) of R.A. No. 6713, including conspiracy.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Decision dated June 28, 2005, of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Cases Nos. 25465-66 is affirmed and upheld. Petitioners are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and Section 7(b) of R.A. No. 6713.
Ratio Decidendi
On the denial of the motion for reconsideration: The Court held that the 2002 Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan mandate that motions for reconsideration must be scheduled for hearings, except for those that can be acted upon ex parte. Failure to comply with this requirement renders the motion pro forma, which does not toll the reglementary period for appeal. The Court distinguished the present case from Alvarez v. Sandiganbayan by noting that the mandatory setting for hearing is now settled jurisprudence, as evidenced by the ruling in Flores v. People. Therefore, the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration. On the violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, Section 7(b) of R.A. No. 6713, and Conspiracy: The Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan's finding that petitioners acted with evident bad faith regarding Section 3(e). The appointment of Dr. Posadas as Project Director by Dr. Dayco, while in an OIC capacity and made retroactive, was deemed invalid. The Court cited Section 204 of the Government Accounting and Auditing Manual, which limits the powers of an OIC to administrative functions and prohibits appointments involving discretion. Furthermore, the Court found that the appointment of the Chancellor himself fell under the President's authority. The Court also rejected the argument that no undue injury was caused to the government. The P30,000 monthly salary paid to Dr. Posadas as Project Director was considered actual injury. The Court sustained the conviction for engaging in the private practice of profession without proper authorization regarding Section 7(b). The authorization should have come from the University President, not merely from the Chancellor himself. The duties of the TMC Project Director were not merely advisory. The Court found that conspiracy was sufficiently established by the evidence of actual cooperation and concerted action.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of public officials for violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and Section 7(b) of R.A. No. 6713. The Court held that evident bad faith was established when an Officer-in-Charge (OIC) appointed the Chancellor (who was on travel) to a project director and consultant position, which was retroactive and potentially violated rules against double compensation and holding multiple positions. The Court also emphasized that a motion for reconsideration must be set for hearing, and failure to comply renders it pro forma, thus not tolling the period to appeal. The funds from foreign grants, once received by the government institution, are considered impressed with public character and any misuse thereof causes undue injury to the government.