LAW ON PUBLIC OFICERS

Calleja vs. Executive Secretary

Case Digest (G.R. No. 252578) December 7,2021

Facts:

In this case there are 37 separate petitions were filed before the Supreme Court challenging
the constitutionality certainly of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020.

Petitioners include the lawyers, human rights advocates, labor unions, journalists, religious
groups, and various organizations.

Petitioners argue that the law violates several provisions of the Constitution, particularly
those protecting civil liberties and human rights.

Issue:

Whether or not the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 is constitutional.

Ruling:

That the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020.

The Court held that the law strikes a balance between national security concerns and the
protection of civil liberties and human rights.

The law provides sufficient safeguards to prevent abuse and ensure due process.

Ratio:

1. Valid exercise of police power: The law is a valid exercise of the state's police power to
protect its citizens from terrorism, which poses a grave threat to national security.

That our law is legitimate exercise of the State's police power to protect its citizens from
terrorism, which is a grave threat to our national security.

2. Clear definitions: The law provides clear definitions of terrorism and terrorist acts, ensuring
that it is not vague or overbroad.

The law provides clear definitions of terrorism and terrorist acts, ensuring that it is not
vague or overbroad.

3. Safeguards: The law includes safeguards such as the requirement of probable cause for the
issuance of arrest warrants, the right to counsel, and the prohibition of torture and other
cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

The law includes safeguards such as the requirement of probable cause for the issuance of
arrest warrants, the right to counsel, and the prohibition of torture and other cruel,
inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

4. Judicial review: The law allows for judicial review of the designation of individuals or groups
as terrorists, ensuring that their rights to due process and equal protection are protected.

The law allows for judicial review of the designation of individuals or groups as terrorists,
ensuring that their rights to due process and equal protection are protected.

5. Asset freezing and forfeiture: The law includes provisions on the freezing and forfeiture of
assets to prevent the financing of terrorist activities.

The law includes provisions on the freezing and forfeiture of assets to prevent the financing
Arroyo vs. Court of Appeals
Case Digest (G.R. No. 202860) April 10,2019

Facts:

That Ulysses A. Brito filed a petition for quo warranto against Lee T. Arroyo and other appointees for
the position of Regional Director of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) Region
V.

Brito was temporarily appointed as the Regional Director for Region V of the Office of Southern
Cultural Communities (OSCC) and was later appointed to the same position in the NCIP.

Brito, along with others, challenged Arroyo's appointment, arguing that he did not possess the
required Career Executive Service (CES) eligibility.

The Court of Appeals (CA) partially granted the petition, reinstating Brito to his former position as
Regional Director for Region V.

Arroyo filed a motion for reconsideration, claiming that Brito's CES eligibility was void due to
falsification of his bachelor's degree.

The CA denied Arroyo's motion.

Issue:

Whether the CA gravely abused its discretion in directing the execution of its decision granting the
quo warranto petition of Brito.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that the CA did gravely abuse its discretion.

Ratio:

The execution of a court's judgment becomes a matter of right upon the expiration of the period to
appeal and no appeal was duly perfected.

The doctrine on immutability of judgments admits exceptions when circumstances transpire after
the finality of the judgment rendering execution unjust and inequitable.

The SC found that the Office of the President's (OP) decision finding Brito liable for dishonesty and
falsification of official documents substantially changed the situation of the parties, making the
execution of the quo warranto judgment impossible, inequitable, and unjust.

Brito's ineligibility and disqualification from the position of Regional Director meant that he could
not claim a better right to the position in a quo warranto proceeding.

Only a person entitled to the position can initiate a quo warranto proceeding.

Therefore, the CA's decision to execute the quo warranto judgment was gravely abused.

De Facto Officer Doctrine:

The de facto officer doctrine applies when a person is in possession of an office and discharges its
duties under a color of authority, even if the appointment or election is irregular or defective.

The official acts of a de facto officer are deemed valid, but the de facto officer may not retain the
salaries and emoluments of the office if there was no good faith possession.

In this case, Brito's actions as a de facto Regional Director would be deemed valid, but he would be
required to account for any salaries and emoluments received.
Lagman vs. Ochoa Jr.

Case Digest G.R. No. 197422, November 03, 2020

Facts:

The case involves the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 10149, also known as the GOCC
Governance Act.

The case was filed by Representative Edcel C. Lagman and Prospero A. Pichay, Jr.

The law addresses the excesses and inefficiencies of government-owned or controlled

corporations (GOCCs) in the Philippines.

The inefficiencies include the receipt of "obscene bonuses" by board directors and the
implementation of "excessively generous retirement schemes."

Republic Act No. 10149 was enacted on June 6, 2011, creating the Governance Commission for
GOCCs (Governance Commission) to evaluate the performance and determine the relevance of
GOCCs.

Issue:

The main issue raised in the case is whether Republic Act No. 10149 is unconstitutional.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled that the provisions of Republic Act No. 10149 are constitutional.

Ratio:

The Congress has the power to legislate changes to public offices, including the modification of
terms and qualifications, as long as it is done in good faith and in pursuit of clear policy objectives.

The law does not violate the security of tenure, as it only shortens the terms of incumbent officials
and does not remove them without cause.

The delegation of powers to the Governance Commission is valid and does not infringe on
legislative powers.

The law does not duplicate or supplant the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission.

The law does not violate the equal protection clause.

Lone Congressional District of Benguet Province vs. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 244063 ) Jun 21, 2022

Facts:

The case involves a dispute over the renewal of a Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA)
between the Republic of the Philippines and Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company and Far
Southeast Gold Resources, Inc.

The MPSA was authorized in 1990 and had an initial 25-year term, renewable for another 25 years.

The mining companies sought to renew the MPSA, but the Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB)
informed them that they needed to obtain the Free and Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) and National
Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) Certification Precondition.

The mining companies argued that this requirement violated their vested rights under the original
agreement.

The dispute was referred to arbitration, and the Arbitral Tribunal ruled in favor of the mining
companies, stating that the certification precondition could not be imposed for the renewal of the
MPSA.

The Republic filed a petition to vacate the Arbitral Award, arguing that the requirement of the
certification precondition was necessary to protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the petition and vacated the award, but the Court of Appeals
reversed the RTC's decision and affirmed the Arbitral Award.

The Lone Congressional District of Benguet Province also filed a motion to intervene in the case,
but the Court of Appeals denied the motion.

Issue:

Whether the mining companies are required to comply with the FPIC and NCIP Certification
Precondition for the renewal of the MPSA.

Ruling:

The Arbitral Award should be vacated because it violates public policy.

The mining companies must comply with the FPIC and NCIP Certification Precondition for the
renewal of the MPSA.

The motion to intervene filed by the Lone Congressional District of Benguet Province is denied.

Ratio:

The mining companies must comply with the FPIC and NCIP Certification Precondition for the
renewal of the MPSA in order to protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities.

The certification precondition is necessary to uphold the State's policy of recognizing and
promoting the rights of indigenous peoples.
Esmero vs. Duterte

Case Digest (G.R. No. 256288) Jul 29, 2021

Facts:

Petitioner Atty. Romeo M. Esmero sought the issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel President
Rodrigo R. Duterte to defend the national territory, particularly the West Philippine Sea, against
Chinese incursions.

Petitioner argued that it is the duty of the government to protect the people and their rights,
including the national territory.

Petitioner claimed that the President's actions and pronouncements on the West Philippine Sea
are subject to judicial review.

Petitioner argued that there is unlawful neglect or inaction on the part of the President in defending
the national territory.

Petitioner proposed that the Philippines should go to the United Nations Security Council and the
International Court of Justice to address the issue.

Issue:

Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to the issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel the
President to defend the national territory against Chinese incursions.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit.

Ratio:

The Court cited its ruling in De Lima v. Duterte, which states that the President is immune from suit
during his incumbency, regardless of the nature of the suit.

The Court explained that mandamus can only be used to compel the performance of a pre-existing
duty and does not lie to control discretion.

The Court emphasized that the President is the guardian of the Philippine archipelago and has the
authority to conduct foreign affairs.

The Court stated that the decision on how to address disputes with China rests with the political
branches of government and that the President has the discretion to determine the best approach.

The Court concluded that the petitioner failed to show a clear legal right to the performance of the
act and a corresponding compelling duty on the part of the President.
Purisima vs. Ricafranca
(G.R. No. 237530) Nov 29, 2021

Facts:
That Alan La Madrid Purisima was held liable for gross negligence in
mandating the delivery of firearm licenses without verifying the capacity of
Werfast Documentary Agency, Inc.
Werfast proposed an online computerized renewal system and courier
delivery service for firearm licenses to the Philippine National Police (PNP).
The proposal was approved by the PNP Chief and a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) was signed.
Werfast faced numerous complaints regarding its services, leading to an
investigation by the Fact-Finding Investigation Bureau.
The Ombudsman found Purisima guilty of grave abuse of authority, grave
misconduct, and serious dishonesty.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the Ombudsman's decision.
Issue:
Whether there is substantial evidence to support the finding of conspiracy
against Purisima.
Ruling:

The Supreme Court found that there was no substantial evidence to support
the finding of conspiracy against Purisima.

Ratio:
The Supreme Court found that there was insufficient evidence to support the
finding of conspiracy against Purisima.
The Supreme Court ruled that Purisima should not be held guilty of serious
dishonesty for the dishonest act of his subordinate.
Purisima's approval of the MOA without verifying Werfast's capacity
constituted gross negligence but did not amount to grave misconduct or grave
abuse of authority.
Resulta vs. Public Assistance and Corruption Prevention Office-Luzon
Case Digest (G.R. No. 245855) Aug 16, 2023

Facts:

This case involves a District Supervisor of QUEDANCOR who was accused of grave misconduct in
the implementation of a swine program.

The petitioner, Romeo DC. Resulta, filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari to challenge the
Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed the Decision and
Consolidated Order of the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) finding him guilty of grave misconduct.

On March 18, 2004, the President and Chief Executive Officer of QUEDANCOR issued
Memorandum Circular No. 270, establishing the Consolidated Guidelines on QUEDANCOR Swine
Program (CG-QSP) to provide an affordable credit facility for swine raisers.

An audit investigation conducted by the Commission on Audit (COA) revealed several irregularities
in the implementation of the CG-QSP in Region IV.

A complaint was filed against several officials and employees of QUEDANCOR, including the
petitioner, for violation of the law.

Issue:

Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of grave misconduct in the implementation of the swine
program.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court held that there was no substantial evidence to support the finding of grave
misconduct.

The Court reversed the decision of the CA and dismissed the complaint against the petitioner.

The Court awarded the petitioner separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, as the agency he worked
for had already been abolished.

The Court also ordered the computation of backwages and other benefits from the time of the
petitioner's dismissal until the actual abolition of the agency.

Ratio:

The Court emphasized that grave misconduct requires intentional wrongdoing or deliberate
violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior.

The Court found that there was a lack of evidence showing the petitioner's deliberate intent to
violate the law or disregard established rules.

The CA held that Resulta's failure to verify documents and deliveries amounted to a flagrant
disregard of the law and established rules, constituting grave misconduct.

Resulta filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court, arguing that there was no substantial
evidence to hold him administratively liable for grave misconduct.

The Supreme Court agreed with Resulta, finding that there was a lack of substantial evidence to
establish his deliberate intent to violate the law or disregard established rules.
Universal Robina Corp. vs. Department of Trade and Industry
Case Digest (G.R. No. 203353) Feb 14, 2023
Facts:

Universal Robina Corporation (URC) filed a petition challenging the constitutionality and vagueness
of a provision on profiteering.

Respondents are the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), DTI Secretary Zenaida C. Maglaya,
and Director Victorio Mario A. Dimagiba.

Director Dimagiba wrote a letter to URC asking why its ex-mill flour prices had not been reduced
despite the decrease in certain cost factors.

URC responded that the price of their flour reflects the price movement of wheat in the world
market and covers their other costs of operation.

Director Dimagiba instructed URC to reduce its ex-mill prices and filed complaints against URC
and other local flour millers for profiteering.

URC filed a petition for declaratory relief before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) challenging the
validity of the laws and executive issuances.

The RTC dismissed the petition for failing to show a justiciable controversy and for being
prematurely filed.

URC filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied.

URC then filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Issue:

Whether the petition for declaratory relief is the proper remedy for challenging the constitutionality
of the provision on profiteering.

Whether the provision penalizing profiteering is unconstitutional and vague.

Ruling:

The petition for declaratory relief is the proper remedy for challenging the constitutionality of a
statute.

There is a justiciable controversy between URC and the DTI.

The provision on profiteering is not unconstitutional and vague.

Ratio:

The court must first determine if there is a justiciable controversy before delving into the
constitutionality of the law.

In this case, there is a clear and convincing showing of a contrariety of legal rights between URC
and the DTI, satisfying the requirement of a justiciable controversy.

The provision on profiteering provides sufficient standards and guidelines to determine what
constitutes profiteering.

The Court discussed the rationale for prohibiting profiteering, noting that basic necessities and
prime commodities tend to be price inelastic, meaning that their demand does not significantly
decrease even with price increases.

Angono Medics Hospital, Inc. vs. Agabin

Case Digest (G.R. No. 202542) Dec 9, 2020
Facts:

That Antonina Q. Agabin, a staff midwife, was illegally dismissed by Angono Medics Hospital, Inc.
(AMHI).

Agabin requested leave without pay for a school requirement, which was approved by her
supervisor.

When Agabin returned to work, she was berated by the former president of AMHI and told to go
home.

Agabin filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, separation pay, backwages, and other monetary
claims.

The Executive Labor Arbiter found Agabin to be illegally dismissed and awarded her full backwages,
separation pay, and other benefits.

AMHI appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which affirmed the Arbiter's
ruling but modified the computation of the separation pay and backwages.

Both parties filed motions for reconsideration, which were denied by the NLRC.

AMHI filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), while Agabin filed a separate
Petition for Certiorari.

The CA dismissed AMHI's petition and reinstated the Arbiter's decision, stating that AMHI's offer of
reinstatement was not supported by evidence.

AMHI's motion for reconsideration was also denied by the CA.

Issue:

Whether there is res judicata between the previous case and the current case regarding the
computation of Agabin's monetary awards.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's decision and held that there was no res judicata between the
two cases.

The Court clarified that the first case already settled the issue of illegal dismissal, while the second
case focused on the computation of the monetary awards.

The Court also explained that the computation of backwages should be from the time of illegal
dismissal until the finality of the decision ordering the payment thereof.

The separation pay should be computed based on one month's salary for every year of service.

The Court ordered AMHI to pay Agabin full backwages, separation pay, and other monetary awards,
with legal interest, and remanded the case for the computation and execution of the award.

Ratio:

The Executive Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Agabin, finding that she was illegally dismissed and
that AMHI did not accord her due process.

The Arbiter awarded Agabin full backwages and separation pay, in addition to other monetary
benefits.

The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's ruling, finding that Agabin was illegally dismissed and entitled
to full backwages and separation pay.

Villanueva vs. People

Case Digest (G.R. No. 237864) Jul 8, 2020
Facts:

Edwin S. Villanueva and Nida V. Villanueva were convicted for violation of Section 3 (d) of Republic
Act No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Edwin was a public officer and served as the Provincial Director of the Technical Education and
Skills Development Authority (TESDA) in Aklan.

Nida, his wife, accepted employment as an In-house Competency Assessor in a private

competency assessment center called Rayborn-Agzam Center for Education, Inc. (RACE).

RACE had pending official business with Edwin.

Issue:

Whether or not the Sandiganbayan correctly convicted Edwin and Nida Villanueva for violation of
Section 3 (d) of Republic Act No. 3019.

Ruling:

The court ruled that the Sandiganbayan correctly convicted Edwin and Nida Villanueva for violation
of Section 3 (d) of Republic Act No. 3019.

Ratio:

To be found guilty of violation of Section 3 (d) of Republic Act No. 3019, the following elements
must be present and proven beyond reasonable doubt:

The accused is a public officer.

He or she accepted or has a member of his or her family who accepted employment in a private
enterprise.

Such private enterprise has a pending official business with the public officer during the pendency
of official business or within one year from its termination.

All the elements of the crime were present in this case.

Edwin was a public officer at the time of the commission of the crime, and Nida accepted
employment in RACE, a private enterprise.

The law does not distinguish between for-profit and non-profit enterprises in its definition of a
private enterprise.

Nida's acceptance of employment with RACE rendered the petitioners liable under the law.
Trinidad, Jr. vs. Office of the Ombudsman
Case Digest (G.R. No. 227440) December 2, 2020
Facts:

Engineer Ricardo O. Trinidad, Jr. served as Engineer II in the Department of Public Works and
Highways-Quezon City Second Engineering District (DPWH-QCSED).

Trinidad was tasked to oversee laborers of the DPWH-QCSED's Oyster Program, which aimed to
provide jobs to Filipinos as gardeners or cleaners.

Among the laborers were Michael Bilaya, Danilo Martinez, Norwena Sanchez, and Danilo dela
Torre.

Trinidad signed the daily time records (DTRs) of these workers for April and May 2005.

It was discovered that some of the workers were simultaneously employed as traffic aides of the
Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) or as field coordinators in the Office of
Congresswoman Nanette C. Daza.

The workers were receiving double or even triple compensations from the three government
agencies.

An administrative case was filed against Trinidad and other approving authorities for signing the
workers' DTRs.

Trinidad was accused of dishonesty, gross neglect of duty, grave misconduct, and conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

The Office of the Ombudsman found Trinidad guilty of gross neglect of duty and imposed the
penalty of dismissal from service.

Issue:

Whether Trinidad's reliance on his subordinate's logbook in signing the workers' DTRs constitutes
gross negligence.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court modified the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman and imposed a two-
month suspension on Trinidad for simple neglect of duty instead of dismissal from service.

Ratio:

The Court affirmed the findings of the Ombudsman and the Court of Appeals (CA) that Trinidad
solely relied on his subordinate's logbook in signing the workers' DTRs.

The Court examined whether this reliance constituted gross negligence.

The Court held that the unjustified reliance on one's subordinate constitutes inexcusable
negligence.
Ochoa, Jr. vs. Dy Buco
Case Digest (G.R. No. 216634 & 216636) Oct 14, 2020
Facts:

The case involves consolidated petitions for review on certiorari filed by Hon. Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr.,
Hon. Rozanno Rufino B. Biazon, and Atty. Juan Lorenzo T. Ta ada against Atty. Christopher S. Dy
Buco.

The case was decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on October 14, 2020.

Atty. Dy Buco, along with other members of the Run-After-The-Smugglers (RATS) Group of the
Bureau of Customs (BOC), were charged with various administrative offenses.

The charges include Grave Misconduct, Grave Abuse of Authority, Oppression, Gross
Incompetence and Inefficiency, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.

The charges stemmed from the implementation of Letters of Authority (LOAs) and Mission Orders
issued by the BOC Commissioner for the enforcement of customs laws.

The Office of the President (OP) found Atty. Dy Buco and the other members of the RATS Group
guilty and imposed the penalty of dismissal from service.

However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the OP's decision and dismissed the complaint
against Atty. Dy Buco.

The CA ruled that Atty. Dy Buco acted within the scope of his authority and with due care in the
implementation of the LOAs and Mission Orders.

Issue:

Whether Atty. Dy Buco is guilty of Grave Misconduct, Grave Abuse of Authority, Oppression, Gross
Incompetence and Inefficiency, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.

Ruling:

The petitions lack of merit and the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the CA.

Atty. Dy Buco did not commit Grave Misconduct, Grave Abuse of Authority, Oppression, Gross
Incompetence and Inefficiency, or Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.

Ratio:

The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's decision, stating that there was no violation of any law or
established rule by Atty. Dy Buco in the implementation of the LOAs and Mission Orders.

The Court also found that there was no evidence of Grave Misconduct, Grave Abuse of Authority, or
Oppression committed by Atty. Dy Buco.
Civil Service Commission vs. Catacutan
Case Digest (G.R. No. 224651 & 224656) Jul 3, 2019
Facts:

Edgar B. Catacutan, a public servant at the Office of the Solicitor General, was found guilty of
simple neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

Catacutan's failure to timely file an appeal for a nullity of marriage case is the main issue in the
case.

Catacutan was responsible for affixing bar codes to incoming documents at the Docket
Management Service (DMS) for further transmission to different departments within the
organization.

In March 2010, a Regional Trial Court declared a marriage null and void.

On June 25, 2010, the court denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG) on behalf of the State.

The OSG had until July 20, 2010, to file an appeal with the Court of Appeals (CA).

Due to a delay in transmitting the order to the assigned lawyer, the appeal was not filed on time.

An investigation was conducted into Catacutan's possible accountability for the failure to timely
process the trial court order.

The OSG found Catacutan guilty of gross neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the best
interest of the service.

The penalty imposed was dismissal from service, cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement
benefits, and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in the government.

Catacutan appealed the decision to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), which affirmed the OSG's
findings and penalties.

Catacutan then appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which partially granted his appeal.

The CA found Catacutan guilty only of simple neglect of duty and imposed a four-month
suspension without pay.

The CA also ordered his reinstatement to his former position after serving the suspension, but
without back wages.

Issue:

Whether Catacutan should be held liable for gross neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the
best interest of the service, as initially found by the OSG and CSC, or for simple neglect of duty, as
found by the CA.

Ruling:

There is no merit in both petitions.

Catacutan's omission was only due to mere inadvertence and not deliberate concealment of the
trial court order.

Catacutan's carelessness and negligence in the performance of his duties as Administrative

Officer V at the OSG, resulting in the forfeiture of the state's right to appeal from an annulment
decree, could also well be placed in the above roster of acts amounting to conduct prejudicial to
the best interest of the service.

Under Section 55 of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999 which governs the instant
administrative proceedings, the penalty to be meted out to Catacutan should be that
corresponding to the most serious charge and the rest will be treated as merely aggravating
circumstances. Simple neglect of duty is a less grave offense punishable by suspension of one
month and one day to six months; whereas conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, a
grave offense, is punishable by suspension of six months and one day to one year. In either case, a
second offense shall warrant dismissal from service. Hence, in view of the lack of mitigating and
aggravating circumstances properly pleaded and proved, Catacutan should be imposed the
penalty of suspension from service for eight months, taking into account the offense of simple
neglect of duty as an aggravating circumstance.

WHEREFORE, the Petitions in G.R. No. 224651 and in G.R. No. 224656 are DENIED. The July 31,
2015 Decision and the April 22, 2016 Resolution of the Court of Appeals-Cebu City in CA-G.R. CEB-
SP No. 07624, finding Edgar B. Catacutan, Administrative Officer V at the Office of the Solicitor
General, guilty only of Simple Neglect of Duty, is MODIFIED to include Conduct Prejudicial to the
Best Interest of the Service. Accordingly, he is hereby meted the penalty of eight (8) months
suspension from office for said offenses.

Ratio:

Both parties sought reconsideration, but the CA denied their motions.

The CSC and the Office of the Solicitor General filed separate petitions for review with the Supreme
Court.

The Supreme Court found no merit in both petitions and upheld the CA's decision.

The Court emphasized that the quantum of evidence necessary to justify an affirmative finding in
administrative proceedings is substantial evidence.

The Court rejected the argument that Catacutan deliberately and intentionally concealed the court
order, as it was not raised in the proceedings below.
Office of the Ombudsman vs. Fronda

Case Digest (G.R. No. 211239) Apr 26, 2021

Facts:

Respondents Mirofe C. Fronda and Florendo B. Arias were employees of the Department of Public
Works and Highways (DPWH).

They were charged with gross neglect of duty and conspiracy to defraud the government.

The case was filed by the Office of the Ombudsman's Field Investigation Office.

The complaint alleged that Fronda and Arias, along with other employees, were involved in a
scheme to fraudulently issue checks for repairs of DPWH service vehicles.

The scheme involved the falsification of supporting documents and the split of job orders to avoid
public bidding and inspection by the Commission on Audit.

The fraudulent issuance of checks amounted to a total of P4,337,862.00.

Issue:

Whether Fronda and Arias should be held administratively liable for gross neglect of duty and
conspiracy to defraud the government.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Office of the Ombudsman and reinstated the
Ombudsman's decision.

Fronda and Arias were found administratively liable for gross neglect of duty.

The penalties of dismissal from service, cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits,
and disqualification to re-enter public office were rein.

Ratio:

The Supreme Court agreed with the CA's ruling.

The Court emphasized the distinction between dishonesty and negligence.

Dishonesty requires intent, while negligence signifies a failure to give proper attention to a task.

The Court found that there was insufficient evidence to establish the respondents' intent to defraud
the government.

Therefore, the respondents could not be held liable for serious dishonesty.
Sarno-Davin vs. Quirante
Case Digest (A.M. No. P-19-4021) Jan 15, 2020
Facts:

Complaint filed by Presiding Judge Carmelita Sarno-Davin against Rosalita L. Quirante, a Clerk III in
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Digos, Davao del Sur, Branch 19.

Allegations of dishonesty, misconduct, and neglect of duty.

Quirante unlawfully took court documents, specifically subject titles and tax declarations, and
delivered them to a former counsel of the accused in criminal cases.

Quirante admitted to taking the documents without authorization but claimed it was out of
compassion for the accused, who were mostly farm laborers.

Quirante also failed to transmit case records to the Court of Appeals for three completed criminal
cases and concealed the fact that separate notices of appeal were filed by the accused in two of
the cases.

Issue:

Whether Quirante committed grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty.

Ruling:

Quirante was found guilty of grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty.

Grave misconduct refers to intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or

standard of behavior.

Gross neglect of duty refers to negligence characterized by a glaring want of care or acting with
conscious indifference to consequences.

Quirante's actions of unlawfully taking court documents and concealing her transgressions were
deemed grave misconduct.

Her failure to transmit case records and acknowledge notices of appeal constituted gross neglect
of duty.

Ratio:

The court based its decision on substantial evidence presented in the case.

Taking court documents without authorization and delivering them to a former counsel is a serious
violation of the law and a clear intent to violate established rules. The court adopted the OCA's
recommendation and modified the finding of simple neglect of duty to gross neglect of duty.

Quirante was dismissed from service with the cancellation of civil service eligibility, perpetual
disqualification from holding public office, and forfeiture of retirement benefits, except accrued
leave credits.
Villanueva vs. People
Case DigestG.R. No. 237864 ( Jul 8, 2020 )
Facts:

Edwin S. Villanueva and Nida V. Villanueva were convicted for violation of Section 3 (d) of Republic
Act No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Edwin was a public officer and served as the Provincial Director of the Technical Education and
Skills Development Authority (TESDA) in Aklan.

Nida, his wife, accepted employment as an In-house Competency Assessor in a private

competency assessment center called Rayborn-Agzam Center for Education, Inc. (RACE).

RACE had pending official business with Edwin.

Issue:

Whether or not the Sandiganbayan correctly convicted Edwin and Nida Villanueva for violation of
Section 3 (d) of Republic Act No. 3019.

Ruling:

The court ruled that the Sandiganbayan correctly convicted Edwin and Nida Villanueva for violation
of Section 3 (d) of Republic Act No. 3019.

Ratio:

To be found guilty of violation of Section 3 (d) of Republic Act No. 3019, the following elements
must be present and proven beyond reasonable doubt:

The accused is a public officer.

He or she accepted or has a member of his or her family who accepted employment in a private
enterprise.

Such private enterprise has a pending official business with the public officer during the pendency
of official business or within one year from its termination.

All the elements of the crime were present in this case.

Edwin was a public officer at the time of the commission of the crime, and Nida accepted
employment in RACE, a private enterprise.

RACE had a pending official business with Edwin during the pendency of the official business when
Edwin signed the Indorsement Letter of RACE to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
and when he signed and approved RACE's TESDA accreditation.

The argument that RACE, being a non-stock and non-profit TESDA accredited educational
association, may not be considered a "private enterprise" under the law was rejected.

The law does not distinguish between for-profit and non-profit enterprises in its definition of a
private enterprise.
Romero vs. Concepcion
Case Digest (G.R. No. 217450) Nov 25, 2020
Facts:

Adelina A. Romero was the Municipal Accountant of the Municipality of Mariveles, Bataan from
1992 to 2002.

In July 2001, several individuals filed an administrative complaint against Romero regarding her
work ethic and conduct related to her duty.

The Civil Service Commission (CSC) Regional Office conducted a fact-finding investigation and
filed an administrative case against Romero for Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the
Best Interest of the Service.

Romero was preventively suspended for 90 days during the investigation.

In 2003, the CSC Regional Office found Romero guilty and imposed the penalty of dismissal from
the service, perpetual disqualification for reemployment in the government, and bar from taking
any civil service examination in the future.

Romero filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied.

She appealed to the CSC, but her appeal was also denied.

Romero then filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals (CA), which partially granted her
appeal and reduced her penalty to a one-year suspension.

The CA decision became final and executory in 2010.

The incumbent Mayor refused to reinstate Romero, leading her to file a Motion for Execution before
the CSC.

Issue:

Whether Romero is entitled to back salaries from the time of the finality of the CA decision in 2010
until her actual reinstatement as Municipal Accountant.

Ruling:

The Court ruled in favor of Romero.

During the pendency of her appeal until the finality of the CA decision, Romero was not entitled to
back salaries because she was not fully exonerated of the charges against her.

Ratio:

The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether Romero was entitled to back salaries from
the time of the finality of the CA decision until her actual reinstatement.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Romero, stating that she should have been reinstated
immediately after the finality of the CA
Louie Mark U. De Guzman

Case Digest (A.M. No. 2020-10-SC) Mar 16, 2021

Facts:

This case involves a storekeeper in the Supreme Court who was found guilty of grave misconduct
for smoking and using a prohibited drug on court premises.

The case originated from confidential reports received by the Office of Administrative Services
(OAS) regarding the respondent's alleged smoking in the stockroom of the Property Division in the
Old SC Building.

Although there were no direct witnesses, personnel stationed outside the stockroom occasionally
noticed the smell of cigarette smoke whenever the respondent was inside.

During an ocular inspection, the OAS discovered a blind spot in the stockroom that surveillance
cameras could not monitor, and the ventilation windows had been taped shut to reduce the
chances of smoke being detected.

In December 2020, the staff noticed an unusual odor from the stockroom that suggested the use of
a prohibited drug.

The respondent was directed to submit a written explanation, and a drug test revealed the
presence of tetrahydrocannabinol, an active component of marijuana.

Issue:

Whether the respondent should be held liable for grave misconduct for smoking and using a
prohibited drug on court premises.

Ruling:

The Court found the respondent guilty of grave misconduct and ordered his dismissal from service.

The Court adopted and approved the findings and recommendations of the Office of Administrative
Services (OAS).

The use of prohibited drugs was deemed a flagrant violation of established rules, constituting grave
misconduct.

The penalty of dismissal from service was deemed appropriate and commensurate with the gravity
of the offense committed by the respondent.

Ratio:

The Supreme Court adopted and approved the findings and recommendations of the OAS.

They ruled that the respondent's use of a prohibited drug constituted grave misconduct, which is a
flagrant violation of established rules.

The Court cited previous cases that established the grave nature of using prohibited drugs.

The penalty imposed was dismissal from service, with forfeiture of all benefits except accrued
leave credits, and with prejudice to reemployment in any government branch or instrumentality.
Villa Gomez vs. People

Case Digest (G.R. No. 216824 ) Nov 10, 2020

Facts:

Gina Villa Gomez was arrested for corruption of public officials on September 17, 2010.

A complaint was filed against her and a resolution was issued by the Office of the City Prosecutor
(OCP) finding probable cause.

An information for corruption of public officials was filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) against
Villa Gomez.

The RTC dismissed the case without any motion from either investigating party, stating that the
information filed by the prosecutor did not contain the signature or approval of the City Prosecutor.

The Prosecution filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by the RTC.

The Prosecution then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which granted the
petition and reinstated the criminal case.

Issue:

Whether the RTC correctly dismissed the case due to the lack of authority on the part of the
handling prosecutor.

Ruling:

The Court of Appeals (CA) ruled that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the
case and reinstated the criminal case against Villa Gomez.

Ratio:

The lack of authority on the part of the handling prosecutor to file the information is not a
jurisdictional defect that would divest the trial court of its jurisdiction.

Objections or challenges pertaining to the handling prosecutor's lack of authority may be waived by
the accused through silence or failure to raise timely objections.

The lack of prior written authority or approval from the prosecuting officer does not affect the trial
court's jurisdiction over the case.

The requirement of prior written authority or approval is merely a formal requirement and can be
waived by the accused.

The purpose of the requirement is to ensure that the prosecuting officer has the necessary
authority to represent the government, but it does not affect the trial court's power to hear and
decide the case.

The cases of Villa and Turingan, which held that the lack of authority to file the information is a
jurisdictional defect, are not applicable to the present case.

NORBERTO B. ALMERON
Saño vs. Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority

Case Digest (G.R. No. 222822) Oct 13, 2021

Facts:

Stefani C. Saño, a government official, was implicated in a controversy involving the smuggling of
rice.

A shipment of 420,000 bags of rice arrived at the Subic Bay Freeport and was stored at the
warehouse of Metro Eastern Corporation.

The Bureau of Customs seized the shipment for violation of the Tariff and Customs Code.

Saño, as the Senior Deputy Administrator for Business and Investment of the Subic Bay
Metropolitan Authority (SBMA), was implicated for introducing the owner/shipper of the rice to
Metro Eastern and suggesting a warehouse for storage.

Saño denied the allegations but admitted to receiving a call related to the rice shipment and using
the name of Senator Juan Ponce Enrile to convince another official to release the shipment.

Saño was issued a formal charge and placed under a 90-day preventive suspension by SBMA
Chairman and Administrator Roberto V. Garcia.

The Senate Committees recommended an investigation by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) for
possible violation of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards.

Issue:

Whether the formal charge is null and void for violating Saño's constitutional right to due process.

Whether the preventive suspension is valid.

Whether there is evidence of manifest partiality, bias, bad faith, and grave abuse of authority in the
issuance of the formal charge.

Ruling:

The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision of the CSC, finding Saño's preventive suspension
valid.

The Supreme Court reversed the CA's decision and declared the formal charge and preventive
suspension invalid.

Ratio:

The formal charge and preventive suspension were issued without complying with the
requirements of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS).

The RRACCS mandates a preliminary investigation to determine whether a prima facie case exists
before issuing a formal charge and order of suspension.

In this case, the SBMA Chairman deviated from the procedure by issuing the formal charge and
suspension without conducting a preliminary investigation.

This violated Saño's constitutional right to due process.

Republic vs. Maneja
Case Digest (G.R. No. 209052) June 23,2021
Facts:

Eulalia T. Maneja, a secondary school teacher, processed Lyn Galarrita Cutamora's salary loan
application with the Manila Teachers Mutual Aid System (MTMAS).

Maneja received a check for the net proceeds of the loan but instead of delivering it to Cutamora,
she deposited it to her own account without Cutamora's endorsement and appropriated the
amount without her consent.

Cutamora filed a complaint against Maneja for dishonesty.

The Civil Service Commission Regional Office (CSCRO) found Maneja guilty and imposed the
penalty of dismissal from the service.

Issue:

Is Maneja entitled to backwages due to the premature execution of the dismissal order while her
appeal was pending?

Ruling:

The court ruled in favor of Maneja and affirmed the grant of backwages.

The premature execution of the dismissal order was deemed illegal and unjustified since Maneja's
appeal was still pending.

Maneja is entitled to backwages for the period of her suspension.

Ratio:

The execution of a dismissal order should not be done until the decision has become final and
executory.

The premature execution of the dismissal order while the appeal is pending is illegal.

Payment of salaries corresponding to the period of suspension may be decreed if the employee is
found innocent of the charges and when the suspension is unjustified.

Maneja's dismissal was prematurely executed, and therefore, her suspension was unjustified.