View full case

PACIFICO C. VELASCO v. SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS:

Engr. Emmanuel Agonoy, the Municipal Engineer of Bacarra, Ilocos Norte, was ordered dismissed by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) in September 1999. Despite this, Mayor Pacifico C. Velasco allowed Agonoy to continue working and even issued a memorandum directing the Municipal Treasurer to pay Agonoy's salaries and benefits until the Supreme Court made a final decision on the case. Agonoy filed a petition for review in the Court of Appeals (CA), which was later denied. He then filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court. In the meantime, Mayor Velasco issued another memorandum directing the immediate release of Agonoy's salary and benefits. The Supreme Court eventually denied Agonoy's petition for review, and he resigned as Municipal Engineer. Vice Mayor Philip Corpus Velasco filed a complaint against Mayor Velasco for violation of Republic Act No. 3019. The Ombudsman found probable cause against Mayor Velasco and filed an information with the Sandiganbayan. Mayor Velasco filed a motion to quash the information, but it was denied by the Sandiganbayan. Mayor Velasco then filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, challenging the denial of the motion to quash.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the allegations in the Information constitute the offense charged under Section 3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019.

  2. Whether or not the petitioner can be held liable for violation of Section 3(e), even if he was not a party to the case in the Civil Service Commission (CSC).

  3. Whether the petitioner, as Municipal Mayor, had the duty to enforce decisions or final resolutions, orders, or rulings of the Civil Service Commission (CSC).

  4. Whether the petitioner can be held liable for allowing a dismissed employee to continue working and receiving compensation.

RULING:

  1. The Court ruled that the allegations in the Information constitute the offense charged under Section 3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019. The Sandiganbayan correctly declared that the Information contained all the essential elements of the crime charged. The petitioner can be held liable for violation of Section 3(e) even if he was not a party to the case in the CSC. As the Municipal Mayor, he was bound to enforce the CSC Resolution and may be cited for contempt for his refusal to do so. The Court held that the petitioner's actions, such as allowing the employee to continue reporting for work and ordering the municipal treasurer to give him salary and benefits, constituted manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. Therefore, the petition for certiorari is denied.

  2. Yes, the petitioner had the duty to enforce decisions or final resolutions, orders, or rulings of the CSC. As the Municipal Mayor, he was mandated to ensure that all officers, including himself, faithfully discharge their duties and functions as provided by law. Failure to do so may result in being cited in contempt of the Commission and being charged with conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service or neglect of duty.

  3. The petitioner can be held liable for allowing a dismissed employee to continue working and receiving compensation. The petitioner knew of the CSC's resolution dismissing the employee, but did not verify if a motion for reconsideration was filed or if a stay order was issued. This constitutes gross negligence on his part, resulting in the giving of unwarranted benefits to the employee and causing undue injury to the government.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The essential elements of violation of Section 3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019 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 unwarranted benefits to any private party.

  • There are two ways by which a public official can violate Section 3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019, namely: (a) causing undue injury to any party, including the government; or (b) giving unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference to any private party. The accused may be charged under either mode or both.

  • The use of the disjunctive term "or" in the provision of Rep. Act No. 3019 connotes that either act qualifies as a violation of Section 3(e).

  • Executive officials and employees of the municipality are mandated to faithfully discharge their duties and functions as provided by law.

  • Failure to enforce decisions or final resolutions, orders, or rulings of the CSC may result in being held in contempt of the Commission and being charged with conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service or neglect of duty.

  • Before implementing a CSC resolution, it is required to furnish a copy to the implementing agency and ensure that it is final and executory.

  • If a stay order is issued by the court, an official cannot be faulted for allowing the employee to continue working and receiving compensation.

  • Gross negligence in enforcing CSC decisions can result in liability for giving unwarranted benefits to an employee and causing undue injury to the government.