Domingo v.

Rayala
February 18, 2008
Nachura, J.
Manzano
SUMMARY: Domingo fled a complaint for sexual
harrassment against DOLE Chairman Rayala. Ofce of the
President created a Committee to investigate on the
complaint. OP ruled against Rayala and ordered his
dismissal. C modifed the penalty and imposed
suspension for the maximum period of ! year. Domingo"
Rayala" and the Repu#lic fled their respective petitions for
certiorari. $C consolidated the cases and ruled that Rayala
is guilty for sexual harrassment and suspended him for the
maximum period of ! year.
DOCTRINE: %asic in the la& of pu#lic ofcers is the three-
fold liability rule" &hich states that the &rongful acts or
omissions of a pu#lic ofcer may give rise to civil" criminal
and administrative lia#ility. n action for each can proceed
independently of the others. 'his rule applies &ith full force
to sexual harassment.
FACTS:
!. (a. Lourdes '. Domingo )Domingo*" then $tenographic
Reporter +++ at the ,LRC" fled a Complaint for sexual
harassment against Rayala #efore the DOLE.
-. Domingo executed an fdavit narrating the incidences
of sexual harassment complained of.
/0. $a simula ay pa#ulong na sinasa#ihan lang a1o ni Chairman
Rayala ng mga salitang 2Lot" gumaganda 1a yata32
4. $a i#ang mga pag1a1ataon nilalapitan na a1o ni Chairman at
haha&a1an ang a1ing #ali1at sa#ay pisil sa mga ito ha#ang a1o ay
nagta5type at ha#ang nag#i#igay siya ng di1tasyon. $a mga
pag1a1ataong ito" 1ina1a#ahan a1o. ,atata1ot na #a1a mangyari sa
a1in ang mga napapa#alitang insidente na nangyari na noon tung1ol
sa mga se1retarya niyang nag#iti& ga&a ng mga mahahalay na
panghihipo ni Chairman.
6. ,oong i1a5!7 ng $etyem#re" !889" nang a1o ay nasa 9
th
:loor"
may nagsa#i sa a1in na 1ailangan a1ong #uma#a sa ;
th
:loor 1ung
nasaan ang aming opisina dahil sa may 1ore1syon da& na gaga&in
sa mga papel na tinayp 1o. %uma#a naman a1o para ga&in ito.
<a#ang ginaga&a 1o ito" luma#as si Chairman Rayala sa silid ni (r.
lex Lope=. +nutusan a1o ni Chairman na sumunod sa 1aniyang silid.
,ang nasa silid na 1ami" sina#i niya sa a1in.
Chairman: ot, ! li"e you a lot. Naiiba "a #a lahat.
t pag1atapos a1o ay 1aniyang inusisa tung1ol sa mga personal na
#agay sa a1ing #uhay. ng ilan dito ay tung1ol sa a1ing mga
magulang" 1apatid" pag5aaral at 1ung may #oyfriend na ra& #a a1o.
Chairman: May boyfriend "a na ba$
ourde#: %ati na&"aroon 'o.
Chairman: Na#aan na #iya$
ourde#: Na&-a#a(a na ho.
Chairman: )a"it hindi "ayo na&"atuluyan$
ourde#: Naini' 'o.
Chairman: *a&"ata'o# mo n& "ur#o mo ay "umuha "a n& a( at a"o
an& bahala #a iyo, han&&an& a"o 'a an& Chairman dito.
Pag1atapos ay 1umuha siya ng pera sa 1aniyang ameri1ana at
inaa#ot sa a1in.
Chairman: +uhanin mo ito.
ourde#: ,u(a& na ho hindi "o "ailan&an.
Chairman: ,indi #i&e, "uhanin mo. -yu#in mo an& da'at ayu#in.
'inanggap 1o po ang pera ng may pag5aalinlangan. ,atata1ot at
1ina1a#ahan na 1apag hindi 1o tinanggap ang pera ay #a1a siya
magagalit 1asa#ay na rito ang pagtapon sa a1in 1ung saan5saan
opisina o 1aya ay tanggalin a1o sa posisyon.
Chairman: *a&laba# mo ita&o mo an& 'era. -ya( "o n& may
ma"a"a-alam nito. Ju#t the t(o of u#.
ourde#: )a"it naman, .ir$
Chairman: )a#ta. Maramin& t#i#mo#a diyan #a laba#. )ut ! don/t &i0e
them a damn. ,indi a"o mamatay #a "anila.
'umayo na a1o at luma#as. Pumanhi1 na a1o ng 9
th
:loor at pumunta
a1o sa ofcemate 1o na si gnes (agdaet. +1in&ento 1o ang
nangyari sa a1in sa opisina ni Chairman. <a#ang 1ini1&ento 1o ito
1ay gnes ay #inilang namin ang pera na nag1a1ahalaga ng P >"777.
$ina#i ni gnes na isauli 1o ra& ang pera" pero ang sa#i 1o ay
natata1ot a1o #a1a magalit si $ir. ,agsa#i agad 1ami 1ay EC Perlita
?elasco at sinalaysay 1o ang nangyari. $ina#i niya na isauli 1o ang
pera at noong ara& ding iyon ay nagpasiya a1ong isauli na nga ito
ngunit hindi a1o nag1aroon ng pag1a1ataon dahil marami siyang
naging #isita. +sinauli 1o nga ang pera noong Lunes" $etyem#re !0"
!889.
;. ,oong huling linggo ng $etyem#re" !889" ay may tinanong din sa
a1in si Chairman Rayala na hindi 1o masi1mura" at sa a1ing palagay
at tahasang pam#a#astos sa a1in.
Chairman: ot, may "a li0e-in "a ba$
ourde#: .ir, (ala 'o.
Chairman: )a"it mala"i an& bala"an& mo$
ourde#: +ayo, .ir ha1 Ma#ama #a amin an& may "a li0e-in.
Chairman: )a"it, ano ba an& relihiyon ninyo$
ourde#: Catholic, .ir. +ailan&an i"a#al muna.
Chairman: )a"it a"o, hindi "a#al.
ourde#: .ir, di ma&'a"a#al "ayo.
Chairman: ,uh. !bahin na n&a natin an& u#a'an.
9. ,oong O1tu#re -8" !889" a1o ay pumaso1 sa 1&arto ni Chairman
Rayala. +to ay sa 1adahilanang ang fax machine ay nasa loo# ng
1aniyang 1&arto. ng nag5aasi1aso nito" si Ri=a Ocampo" ay na1a5
leave 1aya a1o ang nag5asi1aso nito noong ara& na iyon. ,ang
ma#igyan 1o na ng fax tone yung 1ausap 1o" pagharap 1o sa 1anan
ay na1aharang sa dadaanan 1o si Chairman Rayala. 'initingnan a1o
sa mata at ang titig niya ay umuusad mula ulo hanggang di#di#
tapos ay ngumiti na may mahalay na pa1ahulugan.
8. ,oong hapon naman ng pareho pa ring petsa" may nag5aapply na
se1retarya sa opisina" sina#i 1o ito 1ay Chairman Rayala.
ourde#: .ir, #i *in"y 'o yun& a''licant, ma&-'a'ainter0ie( 'o yata
#a inyo.
Chairman: .abihin mo ma&'a-'a' #mear muna #iya
Chairman: 2 #i&e, i-refer mo "ay -le3.
!7. ,oong ,o#yem#re 8" !889" a1o ay tina&ag ni Chairman Rayala
sa 1aniyang opisina upang 1uhanin 1o ang di1tasyon niya para 1ay
EL Oscar @y. <indi pa 1ami na1a1atapos ng unang talata" may
pumaso1 na #isita si Chairman" si %a#y Pangilinan na sinamahan ni
Ri=a Ocampo. Pinala#as muna a1o ni Chairman. ,ang ma1a5alis na si
(s. Pangilinan" pinapaso1 na niya a1o ulit. @mupo a1o. Lumapit sa
li1uran 1o si Chairman" hina&a1an ang 1ali&ang #ali1at 1o na
pinipisil ng 1anang 1amay niya at sina#i. Chairman. $aan na #a tayo
natapos3
Pala1ad5la1ad siya sa a1ing li1uran ha#ang nag5didi1ta. <uminto siya
pag1atapos" at nilagay niya ang 1anang 1amay niya sa a1ing 1anang
#ali1at at pinisil5pisil ito pag1atapos ay pinagapang niya ito sa
1anang #ahagi ng a1ing leeg" at pinagapang hanggang 1anang
tenga at sa1a 1iniliti. Dito 1o inalis ang 1aniyang 1amay sa
pamamagitan ng a1ing 1ali&ang 1amay. t sa1a 1o sina#i.
ourde#: .ir, yun& "amay ninyo ali#in niyo1
,atapos 1o rin ang liham na pinagaga&a niya pero halos hindi 1o na
maintindihan ang na5isulat 1o dahil sa ta1ot at inis na
nararamdaman 1o.
fter the last incident narrated" Domingo fled for leave of a#sence
and as1ed to #e immediately transferred. 'hereafter" she fled the
Complaint for sexual harassment on the #asis of dministrative
Order ,o. -47" the 4ule# and 4e&ulation# !m'lementin& 4- 5855 in
the %e'artment of abor and 6m'loyment.7
>. @pon receipt of the Complaint" the DOLE $ecretary
referred the Complaint to the OP" Rayala #eing a
presidential appointee. 'he OP" through then Executive
$ecretary Ronaldo Aamora" ordered $ecretary Laguesma to
investigate the allegations in the Complaint and create a
committee for such purpose. $ecretary Laguesma issued
O ,o. -97" $eries of !889" constituting a Committee on
Decorum and +nvestigation )Committee* in accordance &ith
Repu#lic ct )R* ;9;;" the -nti-.e3ual ,ara##ment -ct of
1889.
0. Committee su#mitted its report and recommendation
fnding Rayala guilty of the oBense charged and
recommended the imposition of the minimum penalty
provided under O -47" &hich it erroneously stated as
suspension for six )6* months.
4. OP" through Executive $ecretary Aamora" issued O !!8
dismissing Rayala from service.
6. Rayala fled a (R &hich the OP denied.
;. <e then fled a Petition for Certiorari and Prohi#ition &ith
Prayer for 'emporary Restraining Order under Rule 64 of
the Revised Rules on Civil Procedure #efore this Court.
<o&ever" the same &as dismissed for disregarding the
hierarchy of courts.
9. Rayala fled an (R. 'he Court recalled earlier Resolution
and referred the petition to the C for appropriate action.
8. 'he C held that there &as sufcient evidence on record
to create moral certainty that Rayala committed the acts
he &as charged &ith.
!7. Rayala fled an (R. C modifed its earlier to the eBect
that the penalty of dismissal is DELE'ED and instead the
penalty of suspension from service for the maximum period
of ! year is +(PO$ED upon the petitioner.
!!. Domingo fled a Petition for Revie& &ith the $C &hich
&as denied for having a defective verifcation. $he fled an
(R &hich the Court grantedC hence" the petition &as
reinstated.
!-. Rayala li1e&ise fled a Petition for Revie& &ith this
Court essentially arguing that he is not guilty of any act of
sexual harassment.
!>. Repu#lic fled a (R of the CDs Resolution. 'he C
denied. 'he Repu#lic then fled its o&n Petition for Revie&.
!0. On Eune -9" -770" the Court directed the consolidation
of the > petitions.
a. G.R. No. 155831. Domingo assails the CDs
resolution modifying the penalty imposed #y the Ofce of
the President from dismissal to suspension from service for
the maximum period of one year.
b. G.R. No. 155840: Rayala asserts that Domingo
has failed to allege and esta#lish any sexual favor" demand"
or reFuest from petitioner in exchange for her continued
employment or for her promotion. ccording to Rayala" the
acts imputed to him are &ithout malice or ulterior motive. +t
&as merely DomingoDs perception of malice in his alleged
acts G a 2product of her o&n imagination2 G that led her to
fle the sexual harassment complaint.
Rayala assails the OPDs interpretation" as upheld #y the C"
that R ;9;; is malum 'rohibitum such that the defense of
a#sence of malice is unavailing.
Rayala next argues that O -47 expands the acts proscri#ed
in R ;9;;.
c. G.R. No. 158700. Repu#lic contends that there is
no legal #asis for the CDs reduction of the penalty imposed
#y the OP. RayalaDs dismissal is valid and &arranted under
the circumstances. 'he po&er to remove the ,LRC Chairman
solely rests upon the President" limited only #y the
reFuirements under the la& and the due process clause.
'he Repu#lic further claims that" although O -47 provides
only a one )!* year suspension" it &ill not prevent the OP
from validly imposing the penalty of dismissal on Rayala.
ISSUES and RATIO:
1. Did Rayala commit !"#al $a%am!nt& YES.
a. :ive C Eustices &ho deli#erated on the case &ere
unanimous in upholding the fndings of the Committee and
the OP. 'hey found the assessment made #y the Committee
and the OP to #e a 2meticulous and dispassionate analysis
of the testimonies of the complainant )Domingo*" the
respondent )Rayala*" and their respective &itnesses.2 'hey
diBered only on the appropriate imposa#le penalty.
#. 'hat Rayala committed the acts complained of G and &as
guilty of sexual harassment G is the common factual fnding
of not Hust one" #ut three independent #odies. the
Committee" the OP and the C. +t should #e remem#ered
that &hen supported #y su#stantial evidence" factual
fndings made #y Fuasi5Hudicial and administrative #odies
are accorded great respect and even fnality #y the courts.
'he principle dictates that such fndings should #ind us.
Rayala: his acts do not constitute sexual harassment"
#ecause Domingo did not allege in her complaint that there
&as a demand" reFuest" or reFuirement of a sexual favor as
a condition for her continued employment or for her
promotion to a higher position. Rayala urges us to apply to
his case our ruling in -:uino 0. -co#ta.
SC: '! a%! not convinc!d. (aic in t$! la) o* +#blic
o,c!% i t$! three-fold liability rule- )$ic$ tat!
t$at t$! )%ong*#l act o% omiion o* a +#blic o,c!%
may giv! %i! to civil- c%iminal and adminit%ativ!
liability. An action *o% !ac$ can +%oc!!d
ind!+!nd!ntly o* t$! ot$!%. T$i %#l! a++li! )it$
*#ll *o%c! to !"#al $a%am!nt.
'he la& penali=ing sexual harassment in our Hurisdiction is
R ;9;;. $ection >
!
thereof defnes &or15related sexual
harassment.
'his section" in relation to $ection ; on penalties" defnes
the criminal aspect of the unla&ful act of sexual
harassment. 'he same section" in relation to $ection 6"
authori=es the institution of an independent civil action for
damages and other afrmative relief.
1
$ec. >. Ior1" Education or 'raining5related $exual <arassment Defned. G
Ior1" education or training5related sexual harassment is committed #y an
employer" manager" supervisor" agent of the employer" teacher" instructor"
professor" coach" trainor" or any other person &ho" having authority"
inJuence or moral ascendancy over another in a &or1 or training or
education environment" demands" reFuests or other&ise reFuires any
sexual favor from the other" regardless of &hether the demand" reFuest or
reFuirement for su#mission is accepted #y the o#Hect of said ct.
)a* +n a &or15related or employment environment" sexual harassment is
committed &hen.
)!* 'he sexual favor is made as a condition in the hiring or in the
employment" re5employment or continued employment of said individual"
or in granting said individual favora#le compensation" terms" conditions"
promotions" or privilegesC or the refusal to grant the sexual favor results in
limiting" segregating or classifying the employee &hich in a &ay &ould
discriminate" deprive or diminish employment opportunities or other&ise
adversely aBect said employeeC
)-* 'he a#ove acts &ould impair the employeeDs rights or privileges under
existing la#or la&sC or
)>* 'he a#ove acts &ould result in an intimidating" hostile" or oBensive
environment for the employee.
$ection 0
-
" also in relation to $ection >" governs the
procedure for administrative cases" 0iz.:
C correctly ruled that RayalaDs culpa#ility is not to #e
determined solely on the #asis of $ection >" R ;9;;"
#ecause he is charged &ith the administrative oBense" not
the criminal infraction" of sexual harassment. +t should #e
enough that the C" along &ith the +nvestigating Committee
2
$ec. 0. %uty of the 6m'loyer or ,ead of 2;ce in a <or"-related,
6ducation or =rainin& 6n0ironment. G +t shall #e the duty of the employer
or the head of the &or15related" educational or training environment or
institution" to prevent or deter the commission of acts of sexual
harassment and to provide the procedures for the resolution" settlement
or prosecution of acts of sexual harassment. 'o&ards this end" the
employer or head of ofce shall.
)a* Promulgate appropriate rules and regulations in consultation &ith and
Hointly approved #y the employees or students or trainees" through their
duly designated representatives" prescri#ing the procedure for the
investigation or sexual harassment cases and the administrative sanctions
therefor.
dministrative sanctions shall not #e a #ar to prosecution in the proper
courts for unla&ful acts of sexual harassment.
'he said rules and regulations issued pursuant to this section )a* shall
include" among others" guidelines on proper decorum in the &or1place
and educational or training institutions.
)#* Create a committee on decorum and investigation of cases on sexual
harassment. 'he committee shall conduct meetings" as the case may #e"
&ith other ofcers and employees" teachers" instructors" professors"
coaches" trainors and students or trainees to increase understanding and
prevent incidents of sexual harassment. +t shall also conduct the
investigation of the alleged cases constituting sexual harassment.
+n the case of a &or15related environment" the committee shall #e
composed of at least one )!* representative each from the management"
the union" if any" the employees from the supervisory ran1" and from the
ran1 and fle employees.
+n the case of the educational or training institution" the committee shall
#e composed of at least one )!* representative from the administration"
the trainors" teachers" instructors" professors or coaches and students or
trainees" as the case may#e.
and the Ofce of the President" found su#stantial evidence
to support the administrative charge.
Even if &e test RayalaDs acts strictly #y the standards set in
$ection >" R ;9;;" he &ould still #e administratively lia#le.
+t is true that this provision calls for a 2demand" reFuest or
reFuirement of a sexual favor.2 %ut it is not necessary that
the demand" reFuest or reFuirement of a sexual favor #e
articulated in a categorical oral or &ritten statement. +t may
#e discerned" &ith eFual certitude" from the acts of the
oBender. <olding and sFuee=ing DomingoDs shoulders"
running his fngers across her nec1 and tic1ling her ear"
having inappropriate conversations &ith her" giving her
money allegedly for school expenses &ith a promise of
future privileges" and ma1ing statements &ith unmista1a#le
sexual overtones G all these acts of Rayala resound &ith
deafening clarity the unspo1en reFuest for a sexual favor.
+t is not essential that the demand" reFuest or reFuirement
#e made as a condition for continued employment or for
promotion to a higher position. +t is enough that the
respondentDs acts result in creating an intimidating" hostile
or oBensive environment for the employee. 'hat the acts of
Rayala generated an intimidating and hostile environment
for Domingo is clearly sho&n #y the common factual fnding
of the +nvestigating Committee" the OP and the C that
Domingo reported the matter to an ofcemate and" after the
last incident" fled for a leave of a#sence and reFuested
transfer to another unit.
RayalaDs invocation of -:uino 0. -co#ta is misplaced"
#ecause the factual setting in that case is diBerent from that
in the case at #ench. +n -:uino" tty. $usan Fuino" Chief of
the Legal and 'echnical $taB of the Court of 'ax ppeals
)C'*" charged then C' Presiding Eudge )no& Presiding
Eustice* Ernesto costa of sexual harassment. $he
complained of several incidents &hen Eudge costa allegedly
'he employer or head of ofce" educational or training institution shall
disseminate or post a copy of this ct for the information of all concerned.
1issed her" em#raced her" and put his arm around her
shoulder. 'he case &as referred to C Eustice Eosefna K.
$alonga for investigation. +n her report" Eustice $alonga
found that 2the complainant failed to sho& #y convincing
evidence that the acts of Eudge costa in greeting her &ith a
1iss on the chee1" in a L#eso5#esoD fashion" &ere carried out
&ith lustful and lascivious desires or &ere motivated #y
malice or ill motive. +t is clear from the circumstances that
most of the 1issing incidents &ere done on festive and
special occasions"2 and they 2too1 place in the presence of
other people and the same &as #y reason of the exaltation
or happiness of the moment.2
Rayala: O -47 does not apply to him. :irst" he argues that
O -47 does not cover the ,LRC" &hich" at the time of the
incident" &as under the DOLE only for purposes of program
and policy coordination. $econd" he posits that even
assuming O -47 is applica#le to the ,LRC" he is not &ithin
its coverage #ecause he is a presidential appointee.
SC: Ihether or not O -47 covers Rayala is of no real
conseFuence. 'he events of this case unmista1a#ly sho&
that the administrative charges against Rayala &ere for
violation of R ;9;;C that the OP properly assumed
Hurisdiction over the administrative caseC that the
participation of the DOLE" through the Committee created
#y the $ecretary" &as limited to initiating the investigation
process" reception of evidence of the parties" preparation of
the investigation report" and recommending the appropriate
action to #e ta1en #y the OP. O -47 had never really #een
applied to Rayala. +f it &as used at all" it &as to serve merely
as an auxiliary procedural guide to aid the Committee in the
orderly conduct of the investigation.
Rayala. C erred in holding that sexual harassment is an
oBense malum 'rohibitum. <e argues that intent is an
essential element in sexual harassment" and since the acts
imputed to him &ere done allegedly &ithout malice" he
should #e a#solved of the charges against him.
SC: Ihat is #efore the $C is an admini#trati0e case for
sexual harassment. 'hus" &hether the crime of
#e3ual harassment is malum in #e or malum 'rohibitum is
immaterial.
Rayala: the charges &ere fled #ecause of a conspiracy to
get him out of ofce and thus constitute merely political
harassment.
SC: conspiracy must #e proved #y clear and convincing
evidence. <is #are assertions cannot stand against the
evidence presented #y Domingo. 'he acts imputed to
Rayala have #een proven as fact. <e has not proven any ill
motive on the part of Domingo and her &itnesses &hich
&ould #e ample reason for her to conHure stories a#out him.
On the contrary" ill motive is #elied #y the fact that Domingo
and her &itnesses G all employees of the ,LRC at that time G
stood to lose their Ho#s or suBer unpleasant conseFuences
for coming for&ard and charging their #oss &ith sexual
harassment.
Rayala: there &as violation of his right to due process. <e
accuses the Committee on Decorum of railroading his trial
for violation of R ;9;;. <e also scored the OPDs decision
fnding him guilty of 2disgraceful and immoral conduct2
under the Revised dministrative Code and not for violation
of R ;9;;. Considering that he &as not tried for
2disgraceful and immoral conduct"2 he argues that the
verdict is a 2sham and total nullity.2
SC: Rayala &as properly accorded due process. +n previous
cases" this Court held that in administrative proceedings"
due process has #een recogni=ed to include the follo&ing.
)!* the right to actual or constructive notice of the institution
of proceedings &hich may aBect a respondentDs legal rightsC
)-* a real opportunity to #e heard personally or &ith the
assistance of counsel" to present &itnesses and evidence in
oneDs favor" and to defend oneDs rightsC )>* a tri#unal vested
&ith competent Hurisdiction and so constituted as to aBord a
person charged administratively a reasona#le guarantee of
honesty as &ell as impartialityC and )0* a fnding #y said
tri#unal &hich is supported #y su#stantial evidence
su#mitted for consideration during the hearing or contained
in the records or made 1no&n to the parties aBected.
'he records of the case indicate that Rayala &as aBorded all
these procedural due process safeguards. lthough in the
#eginning he Fuestioned the authority of the Committee to
try him" he appeared" personally and &ith counsel" and
participated in the proceedings.
+t is note&orthy that under O -47" sexual harassment
amounts to disgraceful and immoral conduct. 'hus" any
fnding of lia#ility for sexual harassment may also #e the
#asis of culpa#ility for disgraceful and immoral conduct.
.. '$at i t$! a++licabl! +!nalty& S#+!nion *o% t$!
ma"im#m +!%iod o* 1 y!a%.
Rayala: under the pertinent Civil $ervice Rules" disgraceful
and immoral conduct is punisha#le #y suspension for a
period of six )6* months and one )!* day to one )!* year. <e
also argues that since he is charged administratively"
aggravating or mitigating circumstances cannot #e
appreciated for purposes of imposing the penalty.
SC: @nder O -47" the penalty for the frst oBense is
suspension for six )6* months and one )!* day to one )!*
year" &hile the penalty for the second oBense is
dismissal. On the other hand" $ection --)o*" Rule M?+ of the
Omni#us Rules +mplementing %oo1 ? of the dministrative
Code of !89; and $ection 4- )!4* of the 4e0i#ed >niform
4ule# on -dmini#trati0e Ca#e# in the Ci0il .er0ice #oth
provide that the frst oBense of disgraceful and immoral
conduct is punisha#le #y suspension of six )6* months and
one )!* day to one )!* year. second oBense is punisha#le
#y dismissal.
@nder the La#or Code" the Chairman of the ,LRC shall hold
ofce d#%ing good b!$avio% until he or she reaches the
age of sixty5fve" #nl! oon!% %!mov!d *o% ca#! a
+%ovid!d by la) or #ecomes incapacitated to discharge
the duties of the ofce.
+n this case" it is the President of the Philippines" as the
proper disciplining authority" &ho &ould determine &hether
there is a valid cause for the removal of Rayala as ,LRC
Chairman. 'his po&er" ho&ever" is Fualifed #y the phrase
2for cause as provided #y la&.2
'hus" &hen the President found that Rayala &as indeed
guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct" the Chief
Executive did not have unfettered discretion to impose a
penalty other than the penalty provided #y la& for such
oBense. s cited a#ove" the imposa#le penalty for the frst
oBense of either the administrative oBense of sexual
harassment or for disgraceful and immoral conduct is
suspension of six )6* months and one )!* day to one )!*
year. ccordingly" it &as error for the Ofce of the President
to impose upon Rayala the penalty of dismissal from the
service" a penalty &hich can only #e imposed upon
commission of a second oBense.
Even if the OP properly considered the fact that Rayala too1
advantage of his high government position" it still could not
validly dismiss him from the service. @nder the 4e0i#ed
>niform 4ule# on -dmini#trati0e Ca#e# in the Ci0il
.er0ice" ta1ing undue advantage of a su#ordinate may #e
considered as an aggravating circumstance and &here only
aggravating and no mitigating circumstances are present"
the maximum penalty shall #e imposed. <ence" the
maximum penalty that can #e imposed on Rayala is
suspension for one )!* year.
DIS/OSITI0E: C is afrmed. Penalty imposed is
suspension for the maximum period of ! year.
F!%%!% v Sandiganbayan
March 1?, 2008
-u#tria-Martinez, J
4od#
SUMMARY: :errer &as charged &ith violation of $ec >)e*
R >7!8 #efore the $andigan#ayan. <e sought the
dismissal of this case #y virtue of his a#solution from an
admin case &hich &as #ased on the same set of facts. 'he
$andigan#ayan denied his motion to Fuash the
information" and the $C agreed" saying that the - actions
do not preclude the fling of the other.
DOCTRINE:
'he dismissal of an admin case does not necessarily #ar
the fling of a crim prosecution for the same or similar acts
&hich &ere the su#Hect of the admin complaint.
'he #asis of administrative lia#ility diBers from criminal
lia#ility. 'he purpose of administrative proceedings is
mainly to protect the pu#lic service" #ased on the time5
honored principle that a pu#lic ofce is a pu#lic trust. On
the other hand" the purpose of the criminal prosecution is
the punishment of crime.
'he rule is that administrative lia#ility is separate and
distinct from penal and civil lia#ilities.
FACTS:
Petition for Certiorari under Rule 64 to annul the
$andigan#ayan resolutions denying the (otion for Re5
determination of Pro#a#le Cause fled #y accused
Dominador :errer" and the other one denying the (R andNor
(otion to Ouash.
:errer &as charged &ith violation of $ec >)e* of R >7!8"
alleging that he &as the dministrator of +ntramuros
dministration" and &hile in the performance of his duties"
he gave un&arranted #enefts to OBshore Construction and
Development Company #y a&arding Lease Contracts to the
latter &ithout pu#lic #idding" as reFuired #y Eoint Circular !
of D%(" DE,R and DPI<" and #y allo&ing construction of
ne& structures in the leased areas &ithout #uilding permit
or clearance reFuired in the +ntramuros Charter.
:errer fled a motion for reinvestigation" &hich &as denied.
<e fled an (R" and a supplemental (R" t$i tim! all!ging
t$at com+lainant in t$i ca! )!%! g#ilty o* *o%#m
$o++ing- b!ca#! t$!%! )a al%!ady a dimial o*
an adminit%ativ! ca! againt $im. 'his &as denied
again. $andigan#ayan ruled that t$!%! )a no *o%#m
$o++ing inc! t$! admin and c%im ca! a%! t)o
di1!%!nt action- o n!it$!% %!ol#tion on t$! am!
)o#ld $av! !1!ct o* %! 2#dicata on t$! ot$!%.
:errer fled a petition for certiorari &ith the $C" #ut &as
denied for #eing fled out of time. <is (R of the same &as
also denied. %efore he can #e arraigned for the crim case"
he fled a (otion for Re5determination of pro#a#le cause"
invo3ing t$! %#ling o* t$! O,c! o* t$! /%!id!nt
abolving $im o* adminit%ativ! liability. 'his &as again
denied" along &ith his (R. $andigan#ayan said. /the
dismissal of the admin complaint does not negate the
existing crim case pending #efore the Court.P
ISSUES: IO, the crim case should #e dismissed #ecause
of the dismissal of the admin case3

RU4IN5: ,o" the dismissal of the admin case cannot
operate to have the crim case dismissed as &ell.
RATIO:
+n *arede# 0 .andi&anbayan" the $C denied a petition to
dismiss a pending crim case &ith the $andigan#ayan on the
#asis of the dismissal of an admin case against the accused.
/s &e have held in =an 0 Comelec, the dismissal of an
admin case does not necessarily #ar the fling of a crim
prosecution for the same or similar acts &hich &ere the
su#Hect of the admin complaintP. <ence" the crim case
against :errer may still proceed despite dismissal of the
admin case.
'he same rule applies to cases &hich have not yet #een
fled in court. +n =an, it &as held that an investigation #y
Om#udsman of the crim case for falsifcation and violation
of nti Kraft and Corrupy Practices ct and an inFuiry in to
the admin charges #y the Comelec are entirely independent
proceedings" neither of &hich results in or concludes the
other. 'he dismissal of an administrative case does not
necessarily #ar the fling of a criminal prosecution for the
same or similar acts &hich &ere the su#Hect of the
administrative complaint.
:errer argues that the crim case reFuires a higher Fuantum
of proof for conviction than the admin case )#eyond
reasona#le dou#t v su#stantial evidence*. 'he Court in
@alencia 0. .andi&anbayan noted that the administrative
case against the accused &as dismissed #y the Om#udsman
on a fnding that the contract of loan entered into &as in
pursuance of the police po&er of the accused as local chief
executive. 'he Om#udsman" ho&ever" still found pro#a#le
cause to criminally charge the accused in court. $C said in
that case. /t$! bai o* adminit%ativ! liability di1!%
*%om c%iminal liability. T$! +#%+o! o* adminit%ativ!
+%oc!!ding i mainly to +%ot!ct t$! +#blic !%vic!-
ba!d on t$! tim!6$ono%!d +%inci+l! t$at a +#blic
o,c! i a +#blic t%#t. On t$! ot$!% $and- t$!
+#%+o! o* t$! c%iminal +%o!c#tion i t$!
+#ni$m!nt o* c%im!.7
'o sustain petitionerQs arguments &ill #e to reFuire the
.andi&anbayan and the Om#udsman to merely adopt the
results of administrative investigations &hich &ould not only
diminish the po&ers and duties of these constitutional
ofces" #ut also violate the independent nature of criminal
and administrative cases against pu#lic ofcials. 'his &ill
also amount to untold delays in criminal proceedings #efore
the .andi&anbayan and Om#udsman" as every criminal trial
and investigation #efore these #odies &ill #e made to a&ait
the results of pending administrative investigations. $uch is
not the intent of the framers of the Constitution and the
la&s governing pu#lic ofcers.
:errer cites arin 0 63ec .ec" #ut the $C said that the case is
not on all fours &ith the case at #ar. +n arin" the accused
&as frst convicted #y the .andi&anbayan for violation of the
,ational +nternal Revenue Code and $ection > )e* of
Repu#lic ct ,o. >7!8. On the #asis of this conviction" an
administrative case &as fled against him. @pon appeal" he
&as acFuitted of the crim charge upon a fnding that the
acts he had committed &ere neither illegal nor irregular.
'he present case diBers from arin #ecause here, the
administrative case &as fled independently of the criminal
case. 'he administrative case &as not fled on the #asis of a
criminal conviction" as in fact" the administrative case &as
dismissed &ithout regard for the results of the criminal case.
'his is in contrast &ith arin, &here the administrative case
&as dismissed only after its #asis" the criminal conviction"
&as overturned on appeal.
'he rule is that administrative lia#ility is separate and
distinct from penal and civil lia#ilities. +n arin, no less than
the $upreme Court acFuitted the accused of charges of
&rongdoingC in the case at #ar" no court of Hustice has yet
declared petitioner not guilty of committing illegal or
irregular acts.
'he independent nature of a criminal prosecution dictates
that the .andi&anbayan must determine petitionerQs
criminal lia#ility &ithout its hands #eing tied #y &hat
transpired in the administrative case. 'he court is duty5
#ound to exercise its independent Hudgment. +t is not ousted
of its Hurisdiction.
@nder the Rules of Court" a#solution from admin lia#ility is
not a ground for a (otion to Ouash. lso" :errer lac1ed the
right to fle this petition #ecause he already raised the issue
in his supplemental (R" &hich has already #een denied.
Ihen he fled the petition &ith the $C" it &as already out of
time" and &ith the denial of such petition" the decision of the
$andigan#ayan denying his petitions &ith the latter" such
petitions have #ecome fnal. <ence" this petition &ith the $C
must necessarily fail.
DIS/OSITI0E: Petition denied.
Civil S!%vic! Commiion
v. Colanggo
-'ril A0, 2008
Corona, J.
*aolo B. )ernardo
For the fact#, you can #im'ly read that indicated in the
.ummary bo3C it #hould be enou&h.
SUMMARY: Colanggo passed the Professional %oard
Examination for 'eachers.
<o&ever" it appeared that someone other than Colanggo
fled his P%E' application and still another person too1 the
exam for him.
'hus" the C$C5CRK charged Colanggo for dishonesty
and conduct preHudicial to the #est interest of service.
'he C$C held that Colanggo did not apply for and
ta1e the P%E' exam. +t found Colanggo guilty and
ordered his dismissal.
Colanggo then fled a petition for certiorari in the C
alleging that the C$C committed grave a#use of discretion
#ecause the pieces of evidence admitted and ta1en against
him &ere +,D(+$$+%LE as they &ere @,@'<E,'+C'ED
P<O'OCOP+E$ of the P%E' application form" picture seat
plan and PD$.
'he C ruled in ColanggoDs favor
'he C$C appealed from the C decision. +t argued that
there should #e no strict adherence to technical rules of
evidence in administrative proceedings such as in
investigating complaints against civil servants. 'he $C
agreed.
DOCTRINE:
'he C$C" in investigating complaints against civil servants"
is not #ound #y technical rules of procedure and evidence
applica#le in Hudicial proceedings.
FACTS:
'ristan C. Colanggo )Colanggo* passed the Professional
%oard Examination for 'eachers. fter&ards he &as
appointed 'eacher + and &as assigned to a pu#lic high
school in $an Eose" $urigao del ,orte.
$u#seFuently" a complaint Fuestioning the eligi#ility of
teachers in $urigao del ,orte &as fled in the Civil $ervice
Commission )C$C* CRK Regional Ofce ,o. M+++ )C$C5
CRK* in %utuan City.
'he C$C5CRK discovered irregularities in ColanggoDs
documents.
'he photographs of 2'ristan C. Colanggo2 attached to
the P%E' application form and to the Octo#er -4"
!88- picture seat plan did not resem#le Colanggo.
'he signature found in the P%E' application form &as
diBerent from that afxed on respondentQs personal
data sheet )PD$*.
+t appeared that someone other than Colanggo fled his
P%E' application and still another person too1 the exam for
him.
'hus" the C$C5CRK charged Colanggo for dishonesty
and conduct preHudicial to the #est interest of service.
'he C$C held" in Resolution ,o. 7-!0!-" that
Colanggo did not apply for and ta1e the P%E' exam.
+t found Colanggo guilty of dishonesty and conduct
preHudicial to the #est interest of service and ordered
his dismissal.
'he C$C held that the picture and signatures
afxed on the P%E' application form" picture
seat plan" and PD$" of Colanggo" #elong to
three diBerent persons &hich clearly serve a
ground to esta#lish a Hust cause for C$C5
CRK to issue a formal charge on Eanuary
!>" !888 against respondent.
Colanggo then fled a petition for certiorari in the C
alleging that the C$C committed grave a#use of discretion
in issuing Resolution ,o. 7-!0!-.
<e pointed out that the pieces of evidence against
him &ere +,D(+$$+%LE as they &ere
@,@'<E,'+C'ED P<O'OCOP+E$ of the P%E'
application form" picture seat plan and PD$.
'he C granted ColanggoDs petition.
+t ruled that the photocopies of the P%E' application
form" picture seat plan and PD$ should have #een
authenticated.
+n this petition or revie& on certiorari" the C$C avers that
the P%E' application form" picture seat plan" and PD$"
though unauthenticated photocopies" should have #een
admitted as evidence.
'he C$C cited 'he @niform Rules on dministrative
Cases in the Civil $ervice )@niform Rules*" &hich does
not reFuire strict adherence to technical rules of
evidence in administrative proceedings.
ISSUES:
1. RRelevantS IO, unauthenticated photocopies should
#e admitted as evidence in administrative
proceedings such as in investigating complaints
against civil servants.
2. IO, the C$C &as correct in ordering ColanggoQs
dismissal.
RU4IN5:
1. Y!.
.. Y!.
RATIO:
1. S!ction 89 o* t$! Uni*o%m R#l! tat! t$at t$!
CSC- in inv!tigating com+laint againt civil
!%vant- i not bo#nd by t!c$nical %#l! o*
+%oc!d#%! and !vid!nc! a++licabl! in 2#dicial
+%oc!!ding. 'he provision provides.
a. $ection >8. 'he direct evidence for the
complainant and the respondent consist of
the s&orn statement and documents
su#mitted in support of the complaint or
ans&er as the case may #e" &ithout preHudice
to the presentation of additional evidence
deemed necessary #ut &as unavaila#le at the
time of the fling of the complaint and the
ans&er upon &hich the cross5examination" #y
the respondent and the complainant
respectively" shall #e #ased. :ollo&ing the
cross5examination" there may #e re5direct or
re5cross examination.
Either party may avail himself of the services
of counsel and may reFuire the attendance of
&itnesses and the production of documentary
evidence in his favor through the compulsory
process of #ub'oena or#ub'oena duce#
tecum.
The inveti!ation hall be conducted for
the "ur"oe of acertainin! the truth
#ithout necearily adherin! to
technical rule a""licable in $udicial
"roceedin!. +t shall #e conducted #y the
disciplining authority concerned or his
authori=ed representatives.
#. 'he C$C correctly appreciated the
photocopies of P%E' application form" picture
seat plan and PD$ )though not duly
authenticated* in determining &hether there
&as sufcient evidence to su#stantiate the
charges against the respondent.
i. %esides" Colanggo never o#Hected to
the veracity of their contents.
ii. <e merely disputed their admissi#ility
on the ground that they &ere not
authenticated.
2. 'he penalty )of dismissal* imposed on respondent
&as therefore fully in accord &ith la& and
Hurisprudence.
a. s a general rule" a fnding of guilt in
administrative cases" if supported #y
su#stantial evidence )or 2that amount of
evidence &hich a reasona#le mind might
accept as adeFuate to Hustify a conclusion2*"
&ill #e sustained #y this Court.
i. 'he C$C granted ColanggoQs motions
to ensure that he &as accorded
procedural due process.
ii. (oreover" it exhaustively discussed
the diBerences in appearances
#et&een Colanggo and the persons
&hose photographs &ere attached to
the P%E' application form and the
picture seat plan.
iii. +t li1e&ise compared the various
signatures on the said documents.
DIS/OSITI0E: 'he Court held that the C$C did not commit
grave a#use of discretion in allo&ing the admission as
evidence of unauthenticated photocopies of documents and
in ordering the dismissal of Colanggo.
R!y!- Domo6ong :
/%inci+io v. R#%al (an3 o*
San Mig#!l
February 25, 200?
=in&a, J.
Franci# D. Franci#co
SUMMARY: 'he #an1 fled a letter complaint against the
petitioners alleging that in a seminar under their
supervision" training materials containing information on
the #an1s fnancial distress &as used and the alleged
#ro1ering done #y Reyes in introducting $oriano" the
president of Rural #an1 of $an (iguel"to ofcials of other
#an1s for a possi#le sale of the #an1.
DOCTRINE: 'he $C exonerated them of the administrative
lia#ility. 'here &as no evidence that they supervised the
seminar. Even if it &as their su#ordinates that introduced
such information in the seminar" Command Responsi#ility
or even Respondat $uperior does not apply. ll heads of
ofces have to rely to a reasona#le extent on the good
faith of their su#ordinates. 'he negligence of the
su#ordinate cannot #e ascri#ed to his superior in the
a#sence of evidence of the latterDs o&n negligence. 'he
dministrative Code of !89; provides that a head of a
department or a superior ofcer shall not #e civilly lia#le
for the &rongful acts" omissions of duty" negligence" or
misfeasance of his su#ordinates" unless he has actually
authori=ed #y &ritten order the specifc act or misconduct
complained of.
lthough the $C eFuates 2#ro1ering2 &ith
unprofessionalism" the &ord 2#ro1ering2 clearly indicates
the performance of certain acts for monetary consideration
or compensation. ll that Reyes did &as to introduce
R%$(+Ds President to the President of ' %an1 and E+%.
,othing more. 'he %$P is an independent #ody corporate
#esto&ed under its charter &ith fscal and administrative
autonomy. s such" its ofcials should #e granted a certain
degree of Jexi#ility in the performance of their duties and
provided insulation from interference and vexatious suits"
especially &hen moves of the 1ind are resorted to as
counterfoil to the exercise of their regulatory mandate.
FACTS. +n a letter to the %$P Kovernor" Rural %an1 of $an
(iguel )%ulacan*" +nc.)R%$(+* charged petitioners &ith
violation of R 6;!> )Code of Conduct and Ethical $tandards
for Pu#lic Ofcials and Employees*. +n an investigation it &as
disclosed that the examination team headed #y Principio
noted -7 serious exceptionsNviolations and defciencies of
R%$(+.
(% directed a special examination on R%$(+. R%$(+
President <ilario $oriano alleged that Reyes &as urging him
to consider selling the #an1. Reyes introduced him through
telephone to (r. ?illacorta" President and CEO of ' %an1. +n
his fdavit" ?illacorta confrmed that he and $oriano met
#ut the meeting never got past the exploratory stage since
?illacorta &as merely contemplating a possi#le #uy5in #ut
$oriano &anted to sell all his eFuity shares. 'hereafter"
Reyes introduced $oriano #y telephone to Castillo of the
Export and +ndustry %an1 )E+%*. ,o negotiation too1 place
#ecause $oriano desired a total sale &hile E+% merely
desired a Hoint venture arrangement or a #uy5in.
'he (% ordered R%$(+ to correct the maHor exceptions
noted and to remit to the %$P the amount ofP-"4>9"09> as
fnes and penalties for incurring defciencies in reserves
against deposit lia#ilities. mong the #an1Ds #oard approved
actions &as the #an1Ds reFuest addressed to Domo5ong for
%$P 2to de#it the demand deposit of the #an1 in the amount
of P-"4>9"09>2 representing the payment of fnes and
penalties.
year after" R%$(+ as1ed for a reconsideration the
imposition of the fne. 'he (% approved the interim reversal
of the entire amount of the penalty 2pending the outcome of
the study on the legal and factual #asis for the imposition of
the penalty.2
'he alleged 2#ro1ering2 #y Reyes and the petitionersD
2unsupported2 recommendation to impose a penalty
of P-"4>9"09>.77 for legal reserve defciency" prompted the
#an1 to fle the letter5complaint charging the petitioners
&ith 2unprofessionalism.2
'he C imposed a fne on the Petitioners eFuivalent to 6
monthsD salary. +n the -77> $C decision" the $C found
Deputy Kovernor Reyes and Director Domo5ong lia#le for
violation of the 2standards of professionalism2 prescri#ed #y
R 6;!> in that they used the distressed fnancial condition
of R%$(+ as the su#Hect of a case study in one of the %$P
seminars and did the 2#ro1ering2 of the sale of R%$(+. 'he
$C reduced the fne to - monthsD salary for Reyes and !
month salary for Domo5ong and exonerated Principio of the
administrative charges. R%$(+ fled a (otion :or Partial
Reconsideration as to Principio.
Reyes and Domo5ong fled a (otion for Reconsideration
arguing that. )!* it &as not under their auspices that the
seminar" &hich used training materials containing t&o case
studies on R%$(+Ds fnancial distress" &as conducted #ut
under that of another department and other ofcials of %$PC
and" )-* they did not do any act &hich constituted
2#ro1ering2 of the sale of R%$(+ or deviated from the
standards of professionalism.
ISSUES. !* IN, the petitioners are lia#le for the use of
training materials containing - case studies on the #an1sDs
fnancial distress5,O
-* IN, petitioners acted unprofessionally5,O
RATIO: 'he (R of Reyes and Domo5ong is meritorious. +n
pinning lia#ility on Reyes and Domo5ong for the seminar
&hich used the rural #an1 as a case study" the $C -77>
decision said that /the very fact that the seminar &as
conducted under their auspices is enough to ma1e
them liabl! to a c!%tain !"t!nt. Reyes" as <ead of the
%$P $upervision and Examination $ector)$E$*" and Domo5
ong" as Director of the %$P Department of Rural
%an1s" $o#ld $av! !"!%ci!d their po&er of control and
supervision o t$at t$! incid!nt co#ld $av! b!!n
+%!v!nt!d o% at t$! v!%y l!at %!m!di!d.2
'he conclusion on petitionersD culpa#ility is grounded on a
mere inference that the seminar &as conducted under their
auspices. 'he extent of their responsi#ility is uncertain.
+t is conceded that there &as no evidence that the seminar
&as conducted under petitionersD patronage in the -77> $C
decision. %ut" as sho&n in the (otion :or Reconsideration" it
&as the %ang1o $entral ng Pilipinas +nstitute )%$P+*" an ofce
separate and independent from the $E$" &hich is directly
under the control and supervision of anot$!% D!+#ty
5ov!%no% for the Resource (anagement $ector
)R($* &hich is charged &ith conducting seminars and
lectures for the %$P" including the seminar involved in this
case.
R(SMI argues that since information on the state of its
fnances found its &ay as a training material of R($" the
event could have transpired only #ecause the $E$ permitted
it. Even if the su#ordinates of petitioners &ere the source of
information" under the principle of command responsi#ility"
petitioners could #e held lia#le for negligence.
SC: gain" there is no evidence on petitionersD role in the
disclosure of information. Command Responsi#ility" an
accepted notion in military or police structural dynamics or
its counterpart of respondent superior in the la& on Fuasi5
delicts does not apply. Kiven that petitioners are high
ran1ing ofcers of the countryDs central monetary authority
theycannot #e expected to monitor the activities of their
su#alterns.
+n -ria# 0. .andi&anbayan" the $C held that all heads of
ofces have to rely to a reasona#le extent on the good faith
of their su#ordinates. 'he case specifcally involved the
lia#ility of the head of ofce in the preparation of #ids"
purchase of supplies and contract negotiations done #y his
su#ordinates. +n the same fashion" petitioners in this case
o&ing to their high ran1s cannot #e expected to acFuaint
themselves &ith such minutiae as the Jo& of fles and
documents &hich leave their des1s. (yriad details such as
those are" #y ofce practice" left to su#alterns and minor
employees. Delegation of function is part of sound
management.
'he negligence of the su#ordinate cannot #e ascri#ed to his
superior in the a#sence of evidence of the latterDs o&n
negligence. 'he immunity of pu#lic ofcers from lia#ility for
the non5feasances" negligence or omissions of duty of their
ofcial su#ordinates and even for the latterDs misfeasances
or positive &rongs rests" according to %eche&" 2u'on
ob0iou# con#ideration# of 'ublic 'olicy, the nece##itie# of
the 'ublic #er0ice and the 'er'le3itie# and embarra##ment#
of a contrary doctrine. =he#e o;cial #ubordinate#, are
them#el0e# 'ublic o;cer# thou&h of an inferior &rade, and
therefore directly liable in the ca#e# in (hich any 'ublic
o;cer i# liable, for their o(n mi#deed# or default#.
'he dministrative Code of !89; provides that a head of a
department or a superior ofcer shall not #e civilly lia#le for
the &rongful acts" omissions of duty" negligence" or
misfeasance of his su#ordinates" unless he has actually
authori=ed #y &ritten order the specifc act or misconduct
complained of.
s to the imputation of unprofessionalism" the -77> $C
decision categori=ed ReyesD telephone introduction of
ofcials of other #an1s as 2#ro1ering2 &hich in turn
constitutes violation of the standards of professionalism. 'he
standards are set forth in $ection 0 )* )#* of R 6;!>" as
follo&s. /*ublic o;cial# and em'loyee# #hall 'erform and
di#char&e their dutie# (ith the hi&he#t de&ree of e3cellence,
'rofe##ionali#m, intelli&ence and #"ill. =hey #hall enter
'ublic #er0ice (ith utmo#t de0otion and dedication to duty.
=hey #hall endea0or to di#coura&e (ron& 'erce'tion# of
their role# a# di#'en#er# or 'eddler# of undue 'atrona&e.P
'he $C eFuates 2#ro1ering2 &ith unprofessionalism. 'he
crucial Fuestion is &hether Reyes conducted himself in an
unprofessional manner in doing the acts imputed to him.
'he acts of Reyes do not constitute 2#ro1ering.2 Case la&
defnes a 2#ro1er2 as 2one &ho is engaged" for others" on a
commiion- negotiating contracts relative to property &ith
the custody of &hich he has no concernC the negotiator
#et&een other parties" never acting in his o&n name #ut in
the name of those &ho employed 'hus" the &ord 2#ro1ering2
clearly indicates the performance of certain acts for
monetary consideration or compensation. ll that Reyes did
&as to introduce R%$(+Ds President to the President of '
%an1 and E+%. ,othing more. 'here &as not even a hint that
he &as motivated #y monetary consideration or s&ayed #y
any personal interest in doing &hat he did.
$oriano himself admitted that the tal1s &ith ?illacorta and
Castillo never got past the exploratory stage #ecause the
t&o &anted a #uy5in &hile he &as for a total sell5out. 'his is
an indication that Reyes &as not personally involved in the
transaction. +f he &ere" he &ould at least have an in1ling of
the plans of ?illacorta and CastilloC other&ise" he &ould not
have &asted his time introducing them to $oriano.
ll told" there is neither legal nor factual support for holding
Reyes and Domo5ong lia#le.
s to the motion for partial reconsideration fled #y R%$(+" it
is argued that Principio should #e administratively penali=ed
for his undue haste in su#mitting his report to the (%" in
ma1ing an unsupported recommendation for imposition of
penalties for legal reserve defciencies" and for ta1ing
charge of the examinations of R%$(+ three consecutive
times. R%$(+Ds arguments are not ne&" they having #een
previously presented to and sFuarely ruled upon #y the
Court.
'he %$P is an independent #ody corporate #esto&ed under
its charter &ith fscal and administrative autonomy. s such"
its ofcials should #e granted a certain degree of Jexi#ility
in the performance of their duties and provided insulation
from interference and vexatious suits" especially &hen
moves of the 1ind are resorted to as counterfoil to the
exercise of their regulatory mandate. Else&ise" the
institutional independence and autonomy of the %$P as the
central mandatory authority &ould #e rendered illusory.
DIS/OSITI0E: (R of Reyes and Domo5ong is KR,'ED.
'hey are not lia#le administratively.
Tab#!na v. Sandiganbayan
February 15, 1885
Ja0ie
SUMMARY: 'a#uena and Peralta" ofcials of (anila
+nternational irport uthority )(+* &ithdre& 44( from
(+ funds and delivered the same to the personal
secretary of Pres. (arcos. 'hey did this in compliance &ith
a Presidential (emorandum issued #y Pres. (arcos. case
for malversation &as fled against them due to the said
transfer of funds and the $andigan#ayan found them
guilty. 'he $C acFuitted them on the ground that they
acted in good faith and that their rights to due process
&ere violated.
DOCTRINE: 'his is not a sheer case of #lind and
misguided o#edience" #ut o#edience in good faith of a duly
executed order. 'he order emanated from the 2;ce of the
*re#ident and #ears the signature of the President himself"
the highest ofcial of the land. +t carries &ith it the
presumption that it &as regularly issued. nd on its face"
the memorandum is patently la&ful for no la& ma1es the
payment of an o#ligation illegal. %esides" the case could
not #e detached from the realities then prevailing at that
time" that is" that the people &ere not free.
FACTS:
5 President (arcos instructed 'a#uena" Keneral
(anager" over the phone to pay directly to his ofce
in cash the 44 million pesos o&ed #y (anila
+nternational irport uthority )(+* to Philippine
,ational Construction Corporation )P,CC*
o &ee1 later" 'a#uena received from (rs.
Kimene=" personal secretary of (arcos" a
Presidential (emo reiterating the order
o 'he Presidential memo refers to the case
o&ed #y (+ to P,CC as stated in the memo
of (inister of 'rade and +ndustry Ongpin
OngpinDs memo details the amounts
o&ed #y (+ to P,CC
5 +n compliance &ith the memo" 'a#uena" &ith the help
of Peralta and Da#ao )Da#ao is at large" hence" not
included in this case* caused the released of 44(
from (+ funds #y means of > &ithdra&als
o 'he transfer of cash all happened in the same
manner. 'a#uena &ithdre& the money" placed
it in peerless #oxes and duTe #ags" loaded in
a #an1Ds armored car and handed to (rs.
Kimene=
o @pon the >
rd
transfer" (rs. Kimene= issued a
receipt &ith her as the signatory
o 'he manner of dis#ursement &as not #ased
on the normal procedure in (+
o ,o vouchers to support the dis#ursement
o ,o receipt from P,CC
5 case for malversation under rt. -!; of the RPC
&as fled against 'a#uena and Peralta #efore the
$andigan#ayan &hich they &ere found guilty #eyond
reasona#le dou#t.
o 'a#uena G Keneral (anager
o Peralta G ssistant (anager
5 'a#uena and Peralta fled the present petition for
revie& #efore the $C" their defense &as. they acted
in good faith and &ere merely complying &ith the
(arcos (emo
ISSUE:
5 IO, 'a#uena and Peralta should #e acFuitted3 G UE$
o 'hey acted in good faith
o 'heir rights to due process &ere violated
RATIO:
On t$! d!*!n! o* good *ait$
5 @$ v. Catolico. 'o constitute a crime" the act must" except
in certain crimes made such #y statute" #e accompanied #y
a criminal intent" or #y such negligence or indiBerence to
duty or to conseFuences as" in la&" is eFuivalent to criminal
intent
5 'a#uena acted in good faith
!* 'a#uena had no other choice #ut to ma1e the
&ithdra&als" for that &as &hat the (RCO$
(emorandum reFuired him to do
o (arcos &as undenia#ly 'a#uenaQs superior V
the former #eing then the President of the
Repu#lic &ho unFuestiona#ly exercised
control over government agencies such as the
(+ and P,CC
o 'a#uena is entitled to the Hustifying
circumstance of 2-ny 'er#on (ho act# in
obedience to an order i##ued by a #u'erior for
#ome la(ful 'ur'o#e.7
'he su#ordinate5superior relationship
#et&een them is clear
'he (arcos (emo &as la&ful as it has
for its purpose partial payment of the
lia#ility of one government agency
)(+* to another )P,CC*
Even granting the
$andigan#ayanDs contention
that the (emo &as unla&ful" it
&ill not aBect 'a#uenaDs good
faith
the (RCO$ (emorandum is
patently legal )for on its face it
directs payment of an
outstanding lia#ility* and that
'a#uena acted under the
honest #elief that the P44
million &as a due and
demanda#le de#t and that it
&as Hust a portion of a #igger
lia#ility to P,CC.
even if the order is illegal if it is
patently legal and the
su#ordinate is not a&are of its
illegality" the su#ordinate is not
lia#le" for then there &ould only
#e a mista1e of fact committed
in good faith.
-* lthought the dis#ursements did not comply &ith the
rules and regulations" 'a#uenaDs non5compliance &as
inevita#le
o <e did not have the luxury of time to o#serve
all auditing procedures of dis#ursement
considering the fact that the (RCO$
(emorandum enHoined his 2immediate
compliance2 &ith the directive that he for&ard
to the PresidentQs Ofce the P44 (illion in
cash
o %e that as it may" 'a#uena surely cannot
escape responsi#ility for such omission. %ut
since he &as acting in good faith" his lia#ility
should only #e administrative or civil in
nature" and not criminal
>* 'he court disagrees &ith the $andigan#ayan that
'a#uena had already converted and misappropriated
the P44 (illion &hen he delivered the same to (rs.
Kimene= and not to the P,CC
o the (RCO$ (emorandum directed 'a#uena
2to pay immediately the Philippine ,ational
Construction Corporation" thru thi# o;ce the
sum of :+:'U :+?E (+LL+O,. . .2" and that &as
&hat 'a#uena precisely did &hen he delivered
the money to (rs. Kimene=
o 'he delivery &as delivery to the Ofce of the
President
o the good faith of 'a#uena in having delivered
the money to the PresidentQs ofce )thru (rs.
Kimene=*" in strict compliance &ith the
(RCO$ (emorandum" &as not at all aBected
even if it later turned out that P,CC never
received the money.
0* Even assuming that the real and sole purpose #ehind
the (RCO$ (emorandum &as to siphon5out pu#lic
money for the personal #eneft of those then in
po&er" still" no criminal lia#ility can #e imputed to
'a#uena
o 'here is no sho&ing that 'a#uena had
anything to do &hatsoever &ith the execution
of the (RCO$ (emorandum. ,or is there
proof that he profted from the felonious
scheme
o no conspiracy &as esta#lished #et&een
'a#uena and the real em#e==lerNs of the P44
(illion
5 ll that has #een said in exculpation of 'a#uena
eFually applies to Peralta for he acted in good faith
&hen he" upon the directive of 'a#uena" helped
facilitate the &ithdra&als
5 'his is not a sheer case of #lind and misguided
o#edience" #ut o#edience in good faith of a duly
executed order.
o the order emanated from the 2;ce of the
*re#ident and #ears the signature of the
President himself" the highest ofcial of the
land. +t carries &ith it the presumption that it
&as regularly issued. nd on its face" the
memorandum is patently la&ful for no la&
ma1es the payment of an o#ligation illegal
o %esides" the case could not #e detached from
the realities then prevailing at that time" that
is" that the people &ere not free
Rig$t to d#! +%oc! )a violat!d
5 'he court notes that it &as struc1 #y the &ay the
$andigan#ayan actively too1 part in the Fuestioning
of a defense &itness and of the accused themselves.
5 $imply consider the volume of Fuestions hurled #y
the $andigan#ayan
o P,CC as1ed !6 Fuestions
o Prosecutor as1ed 6
o $andigan#ayan as1ed -;
+t then further as1ed !7 Fuestions
o Ihen 'a#uena too1 the stand" the
sandigan#ayan as1ed 6; Fuestions
o +n PeraltaDs case it as1ed 0! Fuestions
5 'he Fuestions of the court &ere in the nature of cross
examinations characteristic of confrontation" pro#ing
and insinuation.
5 'he court has ac1no&ledged the right of a trial Hudge
to Fuestion &itnesses &ith a vie& to satisfying his
mind upon any material point &hich presents itself
during the trial of a case over &hich he presides. %ut
not only should his examination #e limited to as1ing
2clariEcatory2 Fuestions" the right should #e
sparingly and Hudiciously usedC for the rule is that the
court should stay out of it as much as possi#le"
neither interfering nor intervening in the conduct of
the trial.

5 <ere" these limitations &ere not o#served. <ardly in
fact can one avoid the impression that the
$andigan#ayan had allied itself &ith" or to #e more
precise" had ta1en the cudgels for the prosecution in
proving the case against 'a#uena and Peralta
Iherefore" Petitioners are here#y CO@+'ED.
D+$$E,'" Davide.
5 <enceforth" all those similarly situated as the
appellants or those &ho could simply provide any
reason for theircompelled o#edience to (r. (arcos
can go scot5free. 'he meaning of ED$ and its
message for history &ould thus #e o#literated
5 'he (arcos (emo cannot #e considered as la&ful
order
o 'he order to deliver 44( &as #ased on the
Ongpin (emo &hich" +f read carefully" readily
sho&s that there &as no 44( o&ed to P,CC
o 'he Ongpin memo only states that >0.4(
&ere due to P,CC" not 44(
o ,ot an iota of good faith &as sho&n in the
conduct of the appellants.
5 %eing responsi#le accounta#le ofcers of the (+"
they &ere presumed to 1no& that" in light of 2the
undeferred portion of the repayment2 of P,CCQs
advances in the amount of P6>.8 million" the (+Qs
unpaid #alance &as only P>0.4 million. 'hey also
ought to 1no& the procedure to #e follo&ed in the
payment of contractual o#ligations.
5 lthough President (arcos &as a dictator" he &as
reported to #e" and even proHected himself as" a
2faithful2 advocate of the rule of la&. s a matter of
fact" he did not hesitate to issue a decree" letter of
instruction" or any presidential issuance in
anticipation of any planned actions or activities to
give the latter the facade or sem#lance of legality"
&isdom" or propriety. Ihen he made the order to
appellant 'a#uena" President (arcos must only #e
understood to order expeditious compliance &ith the
reFuirements to facilitate immediate release of the
money. 'here &as no &ay for 'a#uena to entertain
any fear that diso#edience to the order #ecause of its
unla&fulness or delay in the execution of the order
due to compliance &ith the reFuirements &ould
cause his head or life. <e oBered no credi#le
evidence for such fear.
5