puboff cases - june 15 and 17

8/9/2019 Puboff Cases - June 15 and 17

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/puboff-cases-june-15-and-17 1/149



previously reserved by them which was similarly adjacent to a tableoccupied by them (pp. 18-19, Ibid .).

13. Twenty minutes later, petitioner arrived. Supposedly, the followingconversation took place, to wit:

JUSTICE BALAJADIA:

q. When Dave Preclaro arrived, whatdid he do?

a. We asked him his order and wetalked about the punch list.

q. What was his comment about thepunch list?

a. He told us that it is harder toproduce small items than big ones.

q. How long did you converse withEngr. Claro Preclaro?

a. I think thirty minutes or so.

q. Was Preclaro alone when hecame?

a. Yes, Your Honor.

xxx xxx xxx

PROS. CAOILI:

q. When you talk[ed] about hispunch list, did you talk aboutanything else?

a. Engineer Sta. Maria, Jr., theywere conversing with Dave Preclaro

and he told [him], "O, paano na."

JUSTICE ESCAREAL:

q. Who said "Paano na?"

a. Engineer Sta. Maria, [Jr.]. Andthen Preclaro told [him], "Paano,How will the money be arranged and

can I bring it?" he said.

And then Jimmy Sta. Maria, Jr. toldhim it was arranged on two bundleson two envelopes.

And then Dave Preclaro told,"Puede" and he asked Jimmy Sta.Maria, Jr. if there is express teller

and could he deposit during nighttime but Engineer Sta. Maria, Jr. toldhim, "I do not have any knowledge or I do not have any express teller youcan deposit. I only know credit card."

PROS. CAOILI:

q. When Engr. Sta. Maria intervened

and interviewed him that way, wasthere anything that happened?

a. Jimmy Sta. Maria, Jr. handed twoenvelopes to Preclaro.

q. Did Claro Preclaro receive thesetwo envelopes from Engineer Sta.Maria?

a. Yes, sir. (pp. 19-21, Ibid ., Seealso pp. 13-14, TSN, 29 Oct. 1990.)

14. From the moment petitioner received the two envelopes with hisright hand, thereafter placing them under his left armpit, he wasaccosted by the NBI men (p. 22, TSN, 12 Oct. 1990).

15. A camera flashed to record the event. Petitioner instinctively

docked to avoid the taking of pictures. In such manner, the twoenvelopes fell (p. 23, Ibid .).



Q What is 460?

A P460,000.00 and he said take of the butal and gettwo Hundred Thousand Pesos.

JUSTICE BALAJADIA:

What is the translation now?

WITNESS:

A And he said disregard the excess and I will just get the P200,000 .00 . (Emphasis ours.)

PROS. CAOILI:

Q What does he mean by that if you know?

A I do not know sir.

He just said, I will get the P200,000 .00 and tell it toyour boss. (Emphasis ours.)

JUSTICE BALAJADIA:

Q What is P200,000.00?

A It is Two Hundred Thousand Pesos.

PROS. CAOILI:

Q What did you answer him when he told you that?

A He told me to forget the deductive and electricaland after that I told my boss what he told me.

Q Who is your boss?

A Santa Maria Sr.

Q What was the reaction of your boss when yourelayed the message to Mr. Preclaro?

A The next day he told me to ask Dave where andwhen to pick up the money so the next day I askedDave "Where do you intend to get the money, theBoss wanted to know."

Q What was the answer of Dave?

A And he told me, Wendy's Restaurant at 3:00o'clock.

Q When?

A June 6 Wednesday.

Q When he told you that did you comply with June 6appointment?

A I told my boss what he told me again that themeeting will take place at Wendy's Restaurant corner Edsa and Camias Street at around 8:00 o'clock p.m.June 6, Wednesday.

Q What did your boss tell you?

A The next day he told me to ask Dave.

Q What did your boss tell you?

A My boss told me to ask Dave to postpone themeeting on June 6 to be postponed on June 8 at thesame place and same time because my boss is

having financial problem.

Q Did you relay the postponement to Dave Preclaro?

A Yes sir. I told what my boss told me.

Q What was his reaction?

A Dave told me "O.K. lang with me" because we are

not in a hurry. Any way we are the ones to sign theacceptance papers and my boss instructed me thaton Friday to ask Dave to bring along the result of thepunch list and if possible also to bring along the



Petitioner also argues that:

According to STA. MARIA, SR., they were deductive by P280,000.00(Id ., pp. 34-35).

If STA. MARIA CONSTRUCTION was deductive in the amount of P280,000.00, why would the petitioner still demand P200,000.00which would increase the contractor's loss to P480,000.00!

It might have been different if the changes were additive where STA.MARIA CONSTRUCTION would have earned more, therebyproviding motive for the petitioner to ask for a percentage! 26

But this is precisely what petitioner was bargaining for ² P200,000.00 in

exchange for forgetting about the deductive27

and thus prevent the Sta.Maria Construction from incurring losses.

Petitioner's contention that it was impossible for him to make any demandsbecause the final decision regarding accomplishments and billing lies with theDOST technical committee is unacceptable. Petitioner is part of theabovementioned technical committee as the ITDI representative consultant.This is part of his duties under the contract of services in connection withwhich he was employed by the ITDI. Even, assuming arguendo that petitioner

does not make the final decision, as supervisor/consultant, hisrecommendations will necessarily carry much weight. Engr. Resoso testifiedthus:

PROS. CAOILI:

Q As a Project Engineer to whom do you presentyour billing papers accomplishment report or purchase order?

A The billing paper was being taken cared of by the,of our office. I personally do my job as supervision inthe construction.

Q Do you have any counterpart to supervise the project from the government side?

A Yes, we have.

Yes, the DOST have a technical Committee Infra-Structure Committee and also the ITDI as its ownrepresentative.

Q Who composed the Technical Committee of the

DOST?

A A certain Engineer Velasco, Engineer SandeBanez and Engineer Mejia.

Q How about the ITDI?

A The ITDI representative composed of DavePreclaro.

Q Who is this Dave Preclaro?

A He is the consultant of ITDI . (Emphasis ours.)

xxx xxx xxx

ATTY. CAOILI:

Q As Project Engineer do you consult to any bodyregarding your job?

A First if there is any problem in the site I consult myboss.

PROS. CAOILI:

Q How about with the other consultants representingthe ITDI and DOST?

A In the construction site we have meeting everyMonday to discuss any problem.

Q With whom do you discuss this problem?

A The Infra-structure Committee of DOST and the

Infra-structure Committee of ITDI, the architect andthe contractor. We had weekly meetings.



Maria Jr. and the NBI agents whose testimonies on the circumstances before,during and after the turn-over are consistent, logical and credible.

According to NBI Agent Francisco Balanban Sr., they purposely took nophotographs of the actual turn-over so as not to alert and scare off the

petitioner. During cross-examination Agent Balanban Jr. stated:

xxx xxx xxx

Q Now, of course, this entrapment operation, youmade certain preparation to make sure that youwould be able to gather evidence in support of theentrapment?

A Yes sir.

Q As a matter of fact you even brought photographer for the purpose?

A That is right sir.

Q And that photographer was precisely broughtalong to record the entrapment?

A Yes sir.

Q From the beginning to the end, that was thepurpose?

A At the time of the arrest sir.

ATTY. JIMENEZ:

From the time of the handing over of the envelopesuntil the entrapment would have been terminated?

A No sir we plan to take the photograph only during the arrest because if we take photographs he would be alerted during the handing of the envelopes.(Emphasis ours.)

Q So you did not intend to take photographs of theact of handing of the envelopes to the suspect?

A We intended but during that time we cannot take photographs at the time of the handling because theflash will alert the suspect . (Emphasis ours.)

JUSTICE ESCAREAL:

Why did you not position the photographer to a far distance place with camera with telescopic lens?

A We did not Your Honor.

ATTY. JIMENEZ:

So was it your intention to take photographs only at

the time that he is already being arrested?

A Yes sir. 32

xxx xxx xxx

Petitioner insists that when his hands were placed under ultra-violet light,both were found negative for flourescent powder. This is petitioner's ownconclusion which is not supported by evidence. Such self-serving statementwill not prevail over the clear and competent testimony and the report 33 submitted by the forensic expert of the NBI Ms. Demelen R. dela Cruz, whowas the one who conducted the test and found petitioner's right palmar handpositive for flourescent powder, the same hand he used, according towitnesses Resoso and Sta. Maria Jr., to get the money from the latter.

xxx xxx xxx

Q Mrs. dela Cruz since when have you been aForensic Chemist at NBI?

A Since 1981 sir.

Q JUSTICE ESCAREAL:

Q By the way, is the defense willing to admit that thewitness is a competent as . . . .

ATTY. JIMENEZ:

Admitted Your Honor.



risk his business or livelihood just to exact revenge which is neither profitablenor logical. As we aptly stated in Maleg v . Sandiganbayan: 37

It is hard to believe that the complainant who is a contractor would jeopardize and prejudice his business interests and risk beingblacklisted in government infrastructure projects, knowing that withthe institution of the case, he may find it no longer advisable nor profitable to continue in his construction ventures. It is hardlyprobable that the complainant would weave out of the blue a seriousaccusation just to retaliate and take revenge on the accused.

From the foregoing, the conclusion is inescapable that on the basis of thetestimonial and documentary evidence presented during the trial, the guilt of petitioner has been established beyond reasonable doubt.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Sandiganbayan is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Padilla, Davide, Jr., Bellosillo and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1 Rollo, p. 31.

2 Id ., at 65.

3 Respondents' Comment, Rollo, p. 78; Petition, Rollo, p. 13.

4 Petition, Rollo, p. 13.

5 Respondents' Comment, Rollo, p. 79.

6 Sandiganbayan Decision dated 30 June 1993; Rollo, p. 32.

7 Respondent's Comment, Rollo, pp. 79-84.

8 Petition, Rollo, p. 12.

9 Id ., at 12-13.

10 Id ., at 11-12.

11 de Leon, Hector S. & de Leon, Hector M. Jr., Law on PublicOfficers & Election Law (1990 ed.), pp. 64-66.

12 Promulgated on 6 October 1975.

13 Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, Chapter 2, Sec. 6(2).

14 Id ., sec. 9.

15 Rollo, p. 15.

16 JOB DESCRIPTION (PROJECT MANAGER)

Check contractor's daily activities toconform with schedule;Check quality of construction;Evaluate contractor's accomplishmentsreports/billings;

Advise on time saving construction method;Check adequacy of material supply for scheduled construction scope of work;

Advise on adequacy of equipment and manpower.

17 Sec. 3(b), RA No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft &Corrupt Practices Act.

18 See Note 15.

19 Rollo, p. 301.

20 Sec. 2, Rule 133 of the Revised Rules on Evidence.

21 TSN, 6 September 1990, pp. 12-13.

22 Id ., Id . at 41-42.

23 Rollo, p. 17.

24 TSN, 6 September 1990, pp. 12-13.

25 Id . at 12.



vs. Court of Appeals, 127 SCRA 231 (1984). 26 23 Am Rep. 538 (1876).



pp , ( )

14 F.R. MECHEM, A TREATISE ON THE LAW OF PUBLICOFFICES AND OFFICERS, §1.

15 Id ., at §§ 4-10. See also 63C Am Jur 2d, Public Officersand Employees §1.

16 Id ., at §4.

17 Ople vs. Torres, 293 SCRA 141 (1998).

18 Id ., at Sec. 2.

19 CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE VII, SECTION 1.

20 Article XII (National Economy and Patrimony) of theConstitution provides:

Section 1. x x x.

The State shall promote industrialization and fullemployment based on sound agriculturaldevelopment and agrarian reform, through industriesthat make full and efficient use of human and naturalresources, and which are competitive in bothdomestic and foreign markets. x x x.

In the pursuit of these goals, all sectors of theeconomy and all regions of the country shall be givenoptimum opportunity to develop. x x x.

21 85 SCRA 599 (1978).

22 Rollo, p. 466.

23 Id , at §§7, 15. See also Triste vs. Leyte State CollegeBoard of Trustees, 192 SCRA 326 (1990)

24 Id ., at §13.

25 Id ., at § 8. Emphasis supplied.

p ( )

27 See Yasay vs. Desierto, 300 SCRA 494 (1998).

28 Preclaro vs. Sandiganbayan, 247 SCRA 454 (1995).

29 Executive Order No. 292.

30 15 C.J.S. Compensation, p. 654.

31 Rollo, p. 470.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 116418 March 7, 1995

SALVADOR C. FERNANDEZ and ANICIA M. DE LIMA, petitioners,vs.HON. PATRICIA A. STO. TOMAS, Chairman, and HON. RAMON B.ERENETA, Commissioner, Civil Service Commission, respondents.

FELICIANO, J .:

In this Petition for Certiorari , Prohibition and Mandamus with Prayer for aTemporary Restraining Order, petitioners Salvador C. Fernandez and AniciaM. de Lima assail the validity of Resolution No. 94-3710 of the Civil ServiceCommission ("Commission") and the authority of the Commission to issue thesame.

Petitioner Fernandez was serving as Director of the Office of Personnel

Inspection and Audit ("OPIA") while petitioner de Lima was serving asDirector of the Office of the Personnel Relations ("OPR"), both at the CentralOffice of the Civil Service Commission in Quezon City, Metropolitan Manila.



SALVADORM. MISONCommission

15

18. FERMIN RODRIGUEZ

19. DALISAY BAUTISTA



er 15

As far as the records will yield, the following were recipients of these notices:

1. CESAR DARIO

2. VICENTE FERIA, JR.

3. ADOLFO CASARENO

4. PACIFICO LAGLEVA

5. JULIAN C. ESPIRITU

6. DENNIS A. AZARRAGA

7. RENATO DE JESUS

8. NICASIO C. GAMBOA

9. CORAZON RALLOS NIEVES

10. FELICITACION R. GELUZ

11. LEODEGARIO H. FLORESCA

12. SUBAER PACASUM

13. ZENAIDA LANARIA

14. JOSE B. ORTIZ

15. GLICERIO R. DOLAR

16. CORNELIO NAPA

17. PABLO B. SANTOS

19. DALISAY BAUTISTA

20. LEONARDO JOSE

21. ALBERTO LONTOK

22. PORFIRIO TABINO

23. JOSE BARREDO

24. ROBERTO ARNALDO

25. ESTER TAN

26. PEDRO BAKAL

27. ROSARIO DAVID

28. RODOLFO AFUANG

29. LORENZO CATRE

30. LEONCIA CATRE

31. ROBERTO ABADA

32. ABACA, SISINIO T.

33. ABAD, ROGELIO C.

34. ABADIANO, JOSE P

35. ABCEDE, NEMECIO C.

36. ABIOG, ELY F.

37. ABLAZA, AURORA M.

38. AGBAYANI, NELSON I.

39. AGRES, ANICETO

40. AGUILAR, FLOR

60. ARVISU, ALEXANDER S.

61. ASCAÑ;O, ANTONIO T.



41. AGUILUCHO, MA. TERESA R.

42. AGUSTIN, BONIFACIO T.

43. ALANO, ALEX P.

44. ALBA, MAXIMO F. JR.

45. ALBANO, ROBERT B.

46. ALCANTARA, JOSE G.

47. ALMARIO, RODOLFO F.

48. ALVEZ, ROMUALDO R.

49. AMISTAD, RUDY M.

50. AMOS, FRANCIS F.

51. ANDRES, RODRIGO V.

52. ANGELES, RICARDO S.

53. ANOLIN, MILAGROS H.

54. AQUINO, PASCASIO E. L.

55. ARABE, MELINDA M.

56. ARCANGEL, AGUSTIN S, JR.

57. ARPON, ULPIANO U., JR.

58. ARREZA, ARTEMIO M, JR.

59. ARROJO, ANTONIO P.

62. ASLAHON, JULAHON P.

63. ASUNCION, VICTOR R.

64. ATANGAN, LORNA S.

65. ANTIENZA, ALEXANDER R.

66. BACAL URSULINO C.

67. BAÑ;AGA, MARLOWE Z.

68. BANTA, ALBERTO T.

69. BARROS, VICTOR C.

70. BARTOLOME, FELIPE A.

71. BAYSAC, REYNALDO S.

72. BELENO, ANTONIO B.

73. BERNARDO, ROMEO D.

74. BERNAS, MARCIANO S.

75. BOHOL, AUXILIADOR G.

76. BRAVO, VICTOR M.

77. BULEG, BALILIS R.

78. CALNEA, MERCEDES M.

79. CALVO, HONESTO G.

80. CAMACHO, CARLOS V.

81. CAMPOS, RODOLFO C.

82. CAPULONG, RODRIGO G.

102. DALINDIN, EDNA MAE D.

103. DANDAL, EDEN F.



83. CARINGAL, GRACIA Z.

84. CARLOS, LORENZO B.

85. CARRANTO, FIDEL U.

86. CARUNGCONG, ALFREDO M.

87. CASTRO, PATRICIA J.

88. CATELO, ROGELIO B.

89. CATURLA, MANUEL B.

90. CENIZAL, JOSEFINA F.

91. CINCO, LUISITO

92. CONDE, JOSE C., JR.

93. CORCUERA, FIDEL S.

94. CORNETA, VICENTE S.

95. CORONADO, RICARDO S.

96. CRUZ, EDUARDO S.

97. CRUZ, EDILBERTO A,

98. CRUZ, EFIGENIA B.

99. CRUZADO,NORMA M.

100. CUSTODIO, RODOLFO M.

101. DABON, NORMA M.

104. DATUHARON, SATA A.

105. DAZO, GODOFREDO L.

106. DE CASTRO, LEOPAPA

107. DE GUZMAN, ANTONIO A.

108. DE GUZMAN, RENATO E.

109. DE LA CRUZ, AMADO A., JR.

110. DE LA CRUZ, FRANCISCO C.

111. DE LA PEÑ;A, LEONARDO

112. DEL CAMPO, ORLANDO

113. DEL RIO, MAMERTO P., JR.

114. DEMESA, WILHELMINA T.

115. DIMAKUTA, SALIC L.

116. DIZON, FELICITAS A.

117. DOCTOR, HEIDY M.

118. DOMINGO, NICANOR J.

119. DOMINGO, PERFECTO V., JR.

120. DUAY, JUANA G.

121. DYSANGCO, RENATO F.

122. EDILLOR, ALFREDO P.

123. ELEVAZO, LEONARDO A

124. ESCUYOS, MANUEL M., JR.

144. GEMPARO, SEGUNDINA G.

145. GOBENCIONG, FLORDELIZ B.



125. ESMERIA, ANTONIO E.

126. ESPALDON, MA. LOURDES H.

127. ESPINA, FRANCO A.

128. ESTURCO, RODOLFO C.

129. EVANGELINO, FERMIN I.

130. FELIX, ERNESTO G.

131. FERNANDEZ, ANDREW M.

132. FERRAREN, ANTONIO C.

133. FERRERA, WENCESLAO A.

134. FRANCISCO, PELAGIO S, JR.

135. FUENTES, RUDY L.

136. GAGALANG, RENATO V.

137. GALANG, EDGARDO R.

138. GAMBOA, ANTONIO C.

139. GAN, ALBERTO P

140. GARCIA, GILBERT M.

141. GARCIA, EDNA V.

142. GARCIA, JUAN L.

143. GAVIOIA, LILIAN V.

146. GRATE, FREDERICK R.

147. GREGORIO, LAURO P.

148. GUARTICO, AMMON H.

149. GUIANG, MYRNA N.

150. GUINTO, DELFIN C.

151. HERNANDEZ, LUCAS A.

152. HONRALES, LORETO N.

153. HUERTO, LEOPOLDO H.

154. HULAR, LANNYROSS E.

155. IBAÑ;EZ, ESTER C.

156. ILAGAN, HONORATO C.

157. INFANTE, REYNALDO C.

158. ISAIS, RAY C.

159. ISMAEL, HADJI AKRAM B.

160. JANOLO, VIRGILIO M.

161. JAVIER, AMADOR L.

162. JAVIER, ROBERTO S.

163. JAVIER, WILLIAM R.

164. JOVEN, MEMIA A.

165. JULIAN, REYNALDO V.

166. JUMAMOY, ABUNDIO A.

186. MAGLAYA, FERNANDO P.

187. MALABANAN, ALFREDO C.



167. JUMAQUIAO, DOMINGO F.

168. KAINDOY, PASCUAL B., JR.

169. KOH, NANIE G.

170. LABILLES, ERNESTO S.

171. LABRADOR, WILFREDO M.

172. LAGA, BIENVENIDO M.

173. LAGMAN, EVANGELINE G.

174. LAMPONG, WILFREDO G.

175. LANDICHO, RESTITUTO A.

176. LAPITAN, CAMILO M.

177. LAURENTE, REYNALDO A.

178. LICARTE, EVARISTO R.

179. LIPIO, VICTOR O.

180. LITTAUA, FRANKLIN Z.

181. LOPEZ, MELENCIO L.

182. LUMBA, OLIVIA R.

183. MACAISA, BENITO T.

184. MACAISA, ERLINDA C.

185. MAGAT, ELPIDIO

188. MALIBIRAN, ROSITA D.

189. MALIJAN, LAZARO V.

190. MALLI, JAVIER M.

191. MANAHAN, RAMON S.

192. MANUEL, ELPIDIO R.

193. MARAVILLA, GIL B.

194. MARCELO, GIL C.

195. MARIÑ;AS, RODOLFO V.

196. MAROKET ,JESUS C.

197. MARTIN, NEMENCIO A.

198. MARTINEZ, ROMEO M.

199. MARTINEZ, ROSELINA M.

200. MATIBAG, ANGELINA G.

201. MATUGAS, ERNESTO T.

202. MATUGAS, FRANCISCO T.

203. MAYUGA, PORTIA E.

204. MEDINA, NESTOR M.

205. MEDINA, ROLANDO S.

206. MENDAVIA, AVELINO

207. MENDOZA, POTENCIANO G.

208. MIL, RAY M.

228. ORTEGA, ARLENE R.

229. ORTEGA, JESUS R.



209. MIRAVALLES, ANASTACIA L.

210. MONFORTE, EUGENIO, JR. G.

211. MONTANO, ERNESTO F.

212. MONTERO, JUAN M. III

213. MORALDE, ESMERALDO B., JR.

214. MORALES, CONCHITA D. L

215. MORALES, NESTOR P.

216. MORALES, SHIRLEY S.

217. MUNAR, JUANITA L.

218. MUÑ;OZ, VICENTE R.

219. MURILLO, MANUEL M.

220. NACION, PEDRO R.

221. NAGAL, HENRY N.

222. NAVARRO, HENRY L.

223. NEJAL FREDRICK E.

224. NICOLAS, REYNALDO S.

225. NIEVES, RUFINO A.

226. OLAIVAR, SEBASTIAN T.

227. OLEGARIO, LEO Q.

230. OSORIO, ABNER S.

231. PAPIO FLORENTINO T. II

232. PASCUA, ARNULFO A.

233. PASTOR, ROSARIO

234. PELAYO, ROSARIO L.

235. PEÑ;A, AIDA C.

236. PEREZ, ESPERIDION B.

237. PEREZ, JESUS BAYANI M.

238. PRE, ISIDRO A.

239. PRUDENCIADO, EULOGIA S.

240. PUNZALAN, LAMBERTO N.

241. PURA, ARNOLD T.

242. QUINONES, EDGARDO I.

243. QUINTOS, AMADEO C., JR.

244. QUIRAY, NICOLAS C.

245. RAMIREZ, ROBERTO P.

246. RANADA, RODRIGO C.

247. RARAS, ANTONIO A.

248. RAVAL, VIOLETA V.

249. RAZAL, BETTY R.

250. REGALA, PONCE F.

270. SINGSON, MELENCIO C.

271. SORIANO, ANGELO L.



251. REYES, LIBERATO R.

252. REYES, MANUEL E.

253. REYES, NORMA Z.

254. REYES, TELESPORO F.

255. RIVERA, ROSITA L.

256. ROCES, ROBERTO V.

257. ROQUE, TERESITA S.

258. ROSANES, MARILOU M.

259. ROSETE, ADAN I.

260. RUANTO, REY CRISTO C., JR.

261. SABLADA, PASCASIO G.

262. SALAZAR, SILVERIA S.

263. SALAZAR, VICTORIA A.

264. SALIMBACOD, PERLITA C.

265. SALMINGO, LOURDES M.

266. SANTIAGO, EMELITA B.

267. SATINA, PORFIRIO C.

268. SEKITO, COSME B JR.

269. SIMON, RAMON P.

272. SORIANO, MAGDALENA R.

273. SUNICO, ABELARDO T .

274. TABIJE, EMMA B.

275. TAN, RUDY GOROSPE

276. TAN, ESTER S.

277. TAN, JULITA S.

278. TECSON, BEATRIZ B.

279. TOLENTINO, BENIGNO A.

280. TURINGAN, ENRICO T JR.

281. UMPA, ALI A.

282. VALIC, LUCIO E.

283. VASQUEZ, NICANOR B.

284. VELARDE, EDGARDO C.

285. VERA, AVELINO A.

286. VERAME, OSCAR E.

287. VIADO, LILIAN T.

288. VIERNES, NAPOLEON K

289. VILLALON, DENNIS A.

290. VILLAR, LUZ L.



53 Supra, sec. 1(a)

54 G.R. No. 78435, August 11, 1987.

55 Supra, 3.

56 CONST. (1987), supra, art. XVIII, sec. 16.

57id G id G

* Paradoxically, Executive Order No. 17 would have provided a"cause" for removal.

72 OP Memo (October 14, 1987).

73 Supra, see fn. 7.

74 Arroyo, supra, 3.



57 Rollo, id., G.R. No. 81954, 216; rollo, id., G.R. No. 81967, 64; rollo,id., G.R. No. 82023, 76.

58 Supra.

59 See Exec. Ord. No. 17, supra, sec. 1.

60

Rollo, id., G.R. No. 85310, 18; rollo, id., G.R. No. 86241, 14.61 Id.; id., 13.

62 Id., 37; id., 33.

63 CONST. (1987), art. XVIII, sec. 16, supra.

64 See fn. 11.

65 CONST. (1935), art. XVI, sec. 4.

66 CONST. (1973), art. XVII, sec. 9.

67 CONST. (1986); art. III, sec. 2, supra.

68 Ginson v. Municipality of Murcia, No. L-46585, February 8, 1988,

157 SCRA 1; De la Llana v. Alba, No. 57883, March 12, 1982, 112SCRA 294; Cruz v. Primicias Jr., No. L-28573, June 13, 1968, 23SCRA 998.

69 III RECORD OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION, 1615-1616 (1986).

70 De Leon v. Esguerra, supra; Palma-Fernandez v. De la Paz, supra.

71

Exec. Ord. No. 17, supra.

75 The petitioner was Leonardo Jose, a Collector III at the Bureau of Customs.

76 Supra, 2.

77 55 Phil. 565 (1930).

78 Supra.

79 Art. III, sec. 1 and art. IX(B) sec. 2(3).

80 Supra. In Palma-Fernandez, we upheld claims of authority of tenure in the absence of a bona fide reorganization. In that case,there was no valid abolition of an office but merely, a change in nameof position. We did not foreclose therein the validity of a removal "not

for cause," provided that there is a valid reorganization.81 Ginson v. Municipality of Murcia, supra; De la Llana v. Alba, supra;Cruz v. Primicias Jr., supra.

82 Palma Fernandez, supra. In that case, the office of "Chief of Clinic'was purportedly abolished and in its place an office of "AssistantDirector for Professional Services" was created. We held that the twopositions "are basically one and the same except for the change of

nomenclature (767.)83 Ginson supra; Cruz, supra.

** Although as we also said, Executive Order No. 17 itself imposed a"cause" for removals under the Freedom Constitution.

84 Rep. Act No. 6156, supra.

85 See G.R. Nos. 81964, 81967, id., 10-11.



Christopher Santos, Buenaventura Punay, Enrico Bandilla,Felino Camacho, Dante E. Deoquino, Jaime P. Urcia, Jesus B.Regondola, Romualdo Liberato, Cesar Franciso, William PantiJr., Michael A. Jacinto and Cesar Dacio. In G .R. No. 126366 private respondent is Sandy Marquez. In G .R. No. 126354 thereis no private respondent (Jovito C. Labajo did not appeal fromthe order of the Court of Appeals).

3 148 SCRA 446 (1986).

13 Gloria vs. Judge de Guzman, G.R. No. 116183, October 6,1995.

14 227 SCRA 320 (1994).

15 Rollo (G.R. 124374), p. 47.

16 Rollo (G.R. 12633), p. 32.



4 Opinion No. 33 of the Secretary of Justice, February 1991.

5 CSC Resolution No. 92-1974 (G.R. No. 126366).

6 CSC Resolution No. 95-3003 (G.R. Jo. 124374).

7 G.R. Nos. 114320 and 120442.

8 Page 8 of the Fifteenth Division of the Court of AppealsDecision dated January 15, 1996 citing Sinco. Political Law, 1949ed. pp. 154-155 citing State vs. City of Maulcato, 136 N.W. 164,41 L.R.A.N.S. 111; People vs. Provinces 35 Cal. 520.

9 Sec. 1719 of B.P. 337 provides that, "the city mayor shall . . .appoint in accordance with Civil Service law, rules and

regulations all officers and employees of the city, whoseappointments are not otherwise provided in this Code."

10 The express mention of one thing in a law will, as a generalrue, mean the exclusion of others not expressly mentioned. Thisrule as a guide to probable legislative intent is based upon rulesof logic and the natural workings of the human mind (Tavora vs.Gavina, 79 Phil. 421).

11 Orbos vs. Civil Service Commission, 189 SCRA 459 (1990);Villanueva vs. Balallo, 9 SCRA 407 (1963); Santos vs. Chito, 25SCRA 343 (1968); Said Benzar Ali vs. Teehankee, 46 SCRA 728(1972); Luego vs. Civil Service Commission, 143 SCRA 327(1986); Central Bank vs. Civil Service Commission, 171 SCRA741 (1989).

12 256 SCRA 396 (1996).

17 Aparri vs. Court of Appeals, 127 SCRA 234 (1984).

18 263 SCRA 184 (1996).

19 Rollo (G.R. 126366), p. 21.

20 197 SCRA 168 (1991).

21 The defunct CSU consisted of 64 positions, to wit:

Number of Positions T itle of Position Monthly Salary

1 Office Head P12,650.00

1 Assistant Dept. Head III P11,385.00

2 Security Officer IV P8,250.00

20 Security Officer II P4,418.00

2 Security Agent II P3,102.00

9 Security Agent I P2,752.00

24 Security Guard II P2,355.00

1 Clerk III P2,473.00

2 Clerk II P2,250.00

1 Driver P2,250.00

1 UtilityWorker P2,000.00

²²²²

64 Positions

While the Intelligence and Security Division of the DPOS createdto replace the defunct CSU (p. 1 of Ordinance NC-130) iscomposed of the following positions:

Number of Position T itle of Position Monthly Salary

22 Rule 3, Section 2, 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure.

23 199 SCRA 497 (1991).

24 G.R. No. 135805, April 29, 1999.

25 192 SCRA 84 (1990).

26 204 SCRA 965 (1991).



1 Chief, Intelligence &

Security Officer P10,135.00

1 Asst. Chief Intelligence

& Security Officer P8,250.00

1 Security Officer III P5,670.00

1 Special Police Area

Supervisor P5,670.00

1 Security Officer II P4,418.00

1 Asst. Spl. Police Area Sv P4,418.00

4 Security Agent II P3,102.00

60 Security Agent I P2,752.00

1 Clerk III P2,473.00

10 Special Police Corporal P2,473.00

1 Clerk II P2,250.00

200 Special Policemen P2,250.00

²²²²

282 Positions

27 215 SCRA 389 (1992).

28 Judge Calderon vs. Solicitor General, 215 SCRA 876 (1992).

29 Chapter 3, Section 12 (11). The Revised Administrative Codeof 1987 on the Civil Service Commission.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 122197 June 26, 1998

ZOSIMO M. DIMAANDAL, petitioner,vs.COMMISSION ON AUDIT, respondent.

MARTINEZ, J .:

This petition for certiorari seeks the reversal of the decision of theCommission on Audit dated September 7, 1995, 1 the dispositive portion of which reads, to wit:

Foregoing premises considered, the instant appeal cannot begiven due course. Accordingly, the disallowance in questionin the total amount of P52,908.00 is hereby affirmed.Considering that the claim for the RATA differential in the



WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is GRANTED. While we uphold theCOMELEC decision dated May 5, 1995 that private respondent JosephEvangelista is the winner in the election for mayor of the Municipality of Kidapawan, North Cotabato, that portion of the decision is deemed moot andacademic because the term of office for mayor has long expired. That portionof the decision awarding actual damages to private respondent JosephEvangelista is hereby declared null and void for having been issued in graveabuse of discretion and in excess of jurisdiction.

SO ORDERED.

13 B.P. Blg. 881, Sec. 259.

14 COMELEC Rules of Procedure, Rule 35, Sec. 19.

15 Atienza v. Commission on Elections, 239 SCRA 298.

16 Ibid .

17 Civil Code of the Philippines, Preliminary Title, Chapter 2.

18 R d i T 91 Phil 724



Narvasa, Padilla, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno,Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Francisco and Panganiban, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1 Promulgated on May 5, 1995 in EAC No. 8-94; Rollo, pp. 36-40.

2 Promulgated on March 24, 1995 in EAC No. 8-94; Rollo, pp. 41-89.

3 Formerly Second Division with members, Commissioners RegaladoE. Maambong, Graduacion A.R. Claravall, and Julio F. Desamito.

4 Dated January 31, 1994; Rollo, pp. 90-135.

5 Regional Trial Court of Kidapawan, Cotabato, 12th Judicial Region,presided by Judge Rodolfo M. Serrano.

6 Election Case No. 881.

7 Amatong v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 71003, April 28, 1988, En Banc ,Minute Resolution; Artano v. Arcillas, G.R. No. 76823, April 26, 1988,En Banc , Minute Resolution.

8 Atienza v. Commission on Elections, 239 SCRA 298; Abeja v.Tañada, 236 SCRA 60; Yorac v. Magalona, 3 SCRA 76.

9 Yorac v. Magalona, supra.

10 3 SCRA 76.

11 239 SCRA 298.

12 Atienza v. Commission on Elections, supra.

18 Rodriguez v. Tan, 91 Phil. 724.

19 Ibid .

20 Concurring Opinion of Justice Padilla in Rodriguez v. Tan, supra.

21 Civil Code of the Philippines, Book IV, Title XVIII, Chapter 2.

22 Decision rendered by the First Division of the Commission onElections (COMELEC), promulgated on March 24, 1995, pp. 45-48;Rollo, pp. 85-88.

23 Atienza v. COMELEC, 239 SCRA 298.

24 Rules of Court, Rule 39, Section 2.

25 206 SCRA 779.

26 Ibid .

27 Garcia v. De Jesus, 206 SCRA 779.

28 Gahol v. Riodique, 64 SCRA 494.

29 Roxas v. Court of Appeals, 157 SCRA 370.

30 91 Phil. 724.

31 Tayco v. Capistrano, 53 Phil. 866.

32 Ibid .

33 Civil Liberties Union v. The Executive Secretary, 194 SCRA 317.



2) There must be color of right or general acquiescence bythe public; and

3) There must be actual physical possession of the office ingood faith. 18

One can qualify as a de facto officer only if all the aforestated elements arepresent. There can be no de facto officer where there is no de jure office,

although there may be a de facto officer in a de jure office. 19

WHEREFORE, the resolution dated 17 February 1992 and orders dated 19 August 1992 and 13 May 1993 of respondent Sandiganbayan in CriminalCase No 16936 are hereby SET ASIDE Respondent Sandiganbayan is

11 Edgardo C. Paras, Rules of Court Annotated Vol.Three, 1990, citing People v. Aragon, L-5930, 17Feb. 1954.

12 Yap v. Paras, 205 SCRA 625 (1994); Quiambaov. Osorio, 158 SCRA 674 (1988); Donato v. Luna,160 SCRA 441 (1988); Ras v. Rasul, 100 SCRA 125(1980).

13 Librodo v. Coscolluela, Jr., 116 SCRA 303 (1982):see also Apa, et al. v. Fernandez, et al., G.R. No.112381, March 20, 1995.



Case No. 16936 are hereby SET ASIDE. Respondent Sandiganbayan isenjoined from proceeding with the arraignment and trial of petitioners inCriminal Case No. 16936 pending final resolution of CA-G.R. CV No. 36769.

SO ORDERED.

Padilla, Davide, Jr. and Bellosillo, JJ., concur.

Hermosisima, Jr., J., took no part.

Footnotes

1 Rollo, pp. 36-37.

2 Id ., at 38-50.

3 Id ., at 51-60.

4 Id ., at 59-61.

5 Id ., at 34-35.

6 Id ., at 30.

7 Id ., at 31.

8 Id ., at 82.

9 Id ., at 29.

10 Id ., at 13-14.

14 Developments In The Law On PrejudicialQuestions, 44 SCRA 208 (1972).

15 Sec. 5, Rule III of Revised Rules of Court; Yap v.

Paras, supra, Umali v. IAC, 186 SCRA 680 (1990).

16 Rollo, p. 92.

17 Id ., at 52-53.

18 Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr.,Law on Public Officers and Election Law, 1990 ed.,

pp. 87-88.

19 Government of the Philippine Islands v. Springer,50 Phil. 259.


Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-23258 July 1, 1967



Panganiban, and Carpio, JJ.,concur.Melo, J., On official leave.Vitug, J., Acting Chairman.

Footnotes

1 Filed under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, asamended.

2 Entitled "Julieta Monserate vs. The General Manager, PhilippinePorts Authority and Ramon Anino."

"A. 1. Permanent Employee

"x x x

"1.2 Those presently occupying position with the same or comparabletitles and duties and responsibilities as those in the approved staffingpattern;

"x x x

"B. Relative Fitness

Where the number of incumbents to be replaced exceed the number



3 Annex "F," Court of Appeals (CA) records, p. 231.

4

Annex "C," CA Rollo, p. 28.5 Annex "F," ibid ., p. 35.

6 Annex "K-1," ibid ., p. 46.

7 CSC MC No. 5, s. 1988 (Supplemental Guidelines on Placement of Personnel in Reorganizing Agencies), Par. 3, provides:

"x x x

"3. All officials and employees, including those who have pendingadministrative charges, shall be evaluated on the basis of standardsfor retention/termination enumerated under MC 10, s. 1986.However, those with pending administrative cases shall not be placedin or appointed to positions higher than the positions held by them atthe start of the reorganization, and the administrative cases againstthem shall be pursued until decided. Persons with derogatory

information or prejudicial reports against them shall be givenreasonable opportunity to rebut the same or present their side."

8 CSC MC No. 10, s. 1986 (Guidelines on Placement of Personnel Affected by the 1986 Government Reorganization) Par. A, 1.2 andPar. B, provide:

"x x x

of positions in the new staffing pattern, they shall be compared interms of relative fitness and the most qualified and competent shallbe preferred. In this respect, the following factors shall be considered:

1. Performance for the last two (2) years;

2. Education and training;

3. Experience and outstanding accomplishment; and

4. Physical characteristics and personality traits.

"x x x"

9 Annex "G," ibid ., pp. 36-38.

10 Annex "J," ibid ., pp. 42-43.

11 CA record, p. 219.

12

Annex "H," CA Rollo pp. 39-40.13 Annex "M," ibid ., pp. 49-50.

14 Annex "S," CA records, p. 264.

15 Annex "A," CA Rollo, pp. 22-24.

16 Rollo. pp. 44-56.



8 Emphasis supplied.

9 Annex "I", Comment, G.R. No. 83896, pp. 62-67, Rollo.

10 Annex "2", Ibid., pp. 68-71, Rollo.

11 Maxwell vs. Dow, 176 U.S. 581, 20 Sup. Ct. 448, 44 L.Ed. 597.

12 R.B. No. 95, Monday, March 11, 1985, Record of theBatasan, Volume IV, pp. 835-836.

13 pp. 11-14.

14 R d f th 1986 C tit ti l C i i V l 1

23 Martin v. Smith, 140 A.L.R. 1073; Ashmore v. Greater Greenville Sewer District, 173 A.L.R. 407.

24 Executive Order No. 16, May 9, 1986, 82 O.G. 2117.

25 Sec. 20, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution.

26 Hirabayashi vs. United States, 320 U.S. 81, 87 L. Ed.

1774, 63 S. Ct. 1375; Opp Cotton Mills, Inc. vs. Administrator of Wage and Hour Div., 312 U.S. 126, 85 L. Ed. 624, 61 S.Ct. 524; Gage vs. Jordan, 23 Cal 2d 794, 174 P 2d, 287 citedin 16 Am Jur 2d, pp. 100, 464.

27 Black's Law Dictionary, p. 516; 15A Words and Phrases,p. 392.



14 Record of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, Vol. 1, p.553.

15 Sec. 3, Ibid .

16 Sec. 7, Article VII.

17 Old Wayne Mut. Life Asso. vs. McDonough, 204 U.S. 8,51 L Ed 345, 27 S Ct 236; Wallace vs. Payne, 197 Cal 539,241 P. 879.

18 Grantz vs. Grauman (Ky) 320 SW 2d 364; Runyon vs.Smith, 308 Ky 73, 212 SW 2d 521.

19 People vs. Wright, 6 Col. 92.

20 Thomas M. Colley, A Treatise on the ConstitutionalLimitations, Vol. I, p. 128, citing Attorney-General vs. Detroitand Erin Plank Road Co., 2 Mich. 114; People vs. Burns, 5Mich. 114 ; District Township vs. Dubuque, 7 Iowa 262.

21 Varney vs. Justice, 86 Ky 596; 6 S.W. 457; Hunt vs. State,22 Tex. App. 396, 3 S.W. 233.

22 As opposed to the term "allowed" used in Section 7, par.(2), Article IX-B of the Constitution, which is permissive."Required" suggests an imposition, and therefore, obligatoryin nature.

p. 392.

28 15A Words and Phrases, p. 392.

29 Sec. 7, E.O. 778.

30 Sec. 1, E.O. 210.

31 21 SCRA 336 (1967).

32 Emphasis supplied.

33 33A Words and Phrases, p. 210, citing Collector of Revenue vs. Louisiana Ready Mix Co., La. App., 197 S. 2d141, 145.

34 Sec. 7, P.D. No. 474.

35 Section 17, Article VII.

36 The phrase that appears in the Constitution is not "Unlessrequired by the primary functions" but "Unless otherwiseallowed by law or by the primary functions . . ."

37 Record of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, Vol. V, pp.165-166.

38 Emphasis supplied, Ibid ., p. 165.



And finally, even granting that the President, acting through the Secretary of Local Government, possesses no power to appoint the petitioner, at the veryleast, the petitioner is a de facto officer entitled to compensation.

There is no denying that the petitioner assumed the Office of the Vice-Governor under color of a known appointment. As revealed by the records,the petitioner was appointed by no less than the alter ego of the President,the Secretary of Local Government, after which he took his oath of officebefore Senator Alberto Romulo in the Office of Department of LocalGovernment Regional Director Res Salvatierra.

Concededly, the appointment has the color of validity. The respondentsthemselves acknowledged the validity of the petitioner's appointment anddealt with him as such. It was only when the controversial Resolution No. 505was passed by the same persons who recognized him as the acting Vice-Governor that the validity of the appointment of the petitioner was made an



y pp pissue and the recognition withdrawn.

The petitioner, for a long period of time, exercised the duties attached to theOffice of the Vice-Governor. He was acclaimed as such by the people of Leyte. Upon the principle of public policy on which the de facto doctrine isbased and basic considerations of justice, it would be highly iniquitous to nowdeny him the salary due him for the services he actually rendered as theacting Vice-Governor of the province of Leyte. (See Cantillo v. Arrieta, 61SCRA 55 [1974])

WHEREFORE, the COURT hereby GRANTS the motion for reconsideration.The additional compensation which the petitioner has received, in the amountexceeding the salary authorized by law for the position of Senior BoardMember, shall be considered as payment for the actual services rendered asacting Vice-Governor and may be retained by him.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan C.J., Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco,Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado and Davide,Jr., JJ., concur.


puboff cases - june 15 and 17

Documents