565 Phil. 707
QUISUMBING, J.:
WHEREFORE, the act of DENR-ARMM in dropping Buyagao from the rolls is hereby considered null and void and is ineffective.Respondent DENR-ARMM Regional Secretary Hadji Faizal G. Karon appealed the Order to the CSC National Office (CSC Proper). In the meantime, Buyagao was not reinstated in office, and his salaries and benefits remained unpaid.
The DENR-ARMM is hereby ordered to release the salaries of Alfredo Buyagao for the month of January and to reinstate him in the payroll.
Parallel to this, a reprimand is hereby imposed against Alfredo Buyagao for inconsistent leave records and further ordered to report to work regularly and sign the logbook.
So Ordered.[3]
That in January 2000 or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in Cotabato, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused FAIZAL KARON, a high ranking public official being the Regional Secretary; NORMA PASANDALAN, OIC AFMS Director; TAYA CANDAO, Personnel Officer and VIRGILIO TORRES, Legal Officer, all of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) in Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao, Cotabato City, while in the performance of their official duties, thus committing the act in relation to their office, wil[l] fully, feloniously and unlawfully, did then and there, with grave abuse of authority, and evident bad faith, drop a certain Alfredo C. Buyagao from the rolls and defy the orders of the Civil Service Commission for the immediate reinstatement of the same Alfredo C. Buyagao to his position as Engineer IV and to correspondingly pay his salaries as such thereby causing undue injury to the latter who was deprived of his salaries and wages.The Sandiganbayan ordered the OSP to conduct a reinvestigation of the case in light of the pendency of the appeal filed by respondents before the CSC Proper. Meanwhile, Buyagao was reinstated in office and paid his salaries on January 8, 2002.[6]
CONTRARY TO LAW.[5]
WHEREFORE, the appeal of ARMM Regional Secretary Hadji Faizal G. Karon is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the Orders dated February 17, 2000 and November 8, 2000 of the CSC-ARMM are reversed and set aside and the dropping of Alfredo C. Buyagao from the rolls is affirmed.[7]In deference, Ombudsman Prosecutor Diosdado V. Calonge of the OSP issued a Resolution[8] dated August 13, 2002. He recommended the dismissal of the graft case against respondents for lack of probable cause. Then, Calonge filed a Manifestation and Motion to Withdraw Information on behalf of the respondents before the Sandiganbayan. On January 13, 2004, the Sandiganbayan issued the assailed Resolution, whose dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, the prosecution’s Motion to Withdraw Information is GRANTED. As prayed for, this case is hereby DISMISSED against all the accused for lack of probable cause.Buyagao filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied in a Resolution dated February 16, 2004.
SO ORDERED.[9]
Stated simply, the issues are: (1) whether respondents acted with evident bad faith when they dropped Buyagao from the roll of employees; and (2) whether Buyagao suffered undue injury when respondents failed to immediately execute the Order of CSC-ARMM.I.
RESPONDENTS COMMITTED EVIDENT BAD FAITH IN DROPPING THE PETITIONER FROM THE ROLL OF PERSONNEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE AUTONOMOUS REGION OF MUSLIM MINDANAO.II.
RESPONDENTS CAUSED UNDUE DAMAGE OR INJURY TO THE PETITIONER FOR FAILURE OF THE RESPONDENTS TO IMMEDIATELY REINSTATE THE PETITIONER AND PAY HIS SALARIES AND BACKWAGES DEFINED AND PUNISHED UNDER SECTION 3(e) OF REPUBLIC ACT [NO.] 3019.[10]
Section. 3. Corrupt Practices of Public Officer. – In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and hereby declared to be unlawful.To hold a person liable under this section, the prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt that:
x x x x
x x x x
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inex[c]usable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.
(1) the accused is a public officer or a private person charged in conspiracy with the former;Undue means more than necessary; not proper; or illegal[16] while injury denotes any wrong or damage done to another, either in his person, rights, reputation, or property.[17] In the context of these definitions, jurisprudence[18] has interpreted “undue injury” to mean actual damage, similar to that in civil law. Bad faith on the other hand does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence, but rather it implies the conscious doing of a wrong because of dishonest purpose or moral obliquity.[19] Thus, mere bad faith or partiality is not enough for one to be held liable under the law since the element of bad faith or partiality must, in the first place, be evident. It is further required that undue injury impacts upon a specified party. [20]
(2) the public officer commits the prohibited acts during the performance of his or her official duties or in relation to his or her public functions;
(3) he or she causes undue injury to any party, whether the government or a private party; and
(4) the public officer has acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.[15]
Sec. 83. Non-Execution of Decision. – Any officer or employee who willfully refuses or fails to implement the final resolution, decision, order or ruling of the Commission to the prejudice of the public service and the affected party, may be cited in contempt of the Commission and administratively charged with conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service or neglect of duty.Note, however, that this rule applies to a final resolution, decision, order or ruling of the Commission, and not one on appeal.
After an employee, whose salary was withheld, fully received her monetary claims, there is no longer any basis for compensatory damages or undue injury, there being nothing more to compensate.[27]Moreover, in the case of Jacinto v. Sandiganbayan,[28] we held that:
Nevertheless, no real or actual damage was suffered by her. She got her withheld salary released. Her name was restored in the plantilla. Thus, the complainant did not suffer undue injury as an element required by the law. Such an injury must be more than necessary, excessive, improper or illegal.[29]Hence, before CSC Proper issued Resolution No. 020312, petitioner was reinstated in office and paid his salaries and benefits. Thus, no undue injury can be claimed in this case. Unlike in actions for torts, undue injury in Section 3(e) cannot be presumed even after a wrong or violation of a right has been established.[30] Its existence must be proven as one of the elements of the crime. In fact, the causing of undue injury or the giving of any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence constitutes the very act punishable under this section. Thus, it is required that the undue injury be specified, quantified and proven to the point of moral certainty.[31]
(e) | Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inex[c]usable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions. |
“a. | An officer or employee who is continuously absent without approved leave (AWOL) for at leas[t] thirty (30) working days shall be separated from the service or dropped from the rolls without prior notice. He shall, however, be informed of his separation from the service not later than (5) days from its effectivity which shall be sent to the address appearing on his 201 files or to his last known address; |
(d) | An appeal even seasonably filed shall not stay the action, order, decision or ruling of the MSPB or CSC Regional/Provincial/Field Office, as the case may be, on appeal except [when] otherwise ordered by the CSC. |