Case Digest

Murry Demdam
Vs
Angeline T. Chua and Yolanda Reyes

OMB-C-C-160084
For:
Violation of Section 3(e) and (j) RA 3019 Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act

Ultimate Facts
Due to apparent disparity in the sets of officers provided by the two
groups(Demdam and Conti) caused by the 2016 PSME Officer Elections, Acting
Chairperson Angeline Chua, Defendant had been requested for an opinion regarding
the issue through the legal and investigation Division of the PRC. Accordingly, the
said Division issued an opinion stating The Commission may recognize those
who were confirmed and ratified by the COMELEC. The Division also stated that
the recommendation was also based on the precedence involving the same
professional organization, PSME. In similar case, The Commission recognized the
group which was recognized by the COMELEC. To which resulted to the recognition by
PRC of Contis group as the valid set of officers of PSME.

Facts regarding 2016 Elections

Please refer to attached chorology of events

Notable Facts
RTC MNL Br 24 in Civil Case no. 15-135040 declared:

1.) VALID and EFFECTIVE the Omnibus Resolution passed on November 22, 2015
declaring the winners of the PSME National Board of Directors.
2.) VOID the election of the 2016 PSME National Officers held on November 25,
2015

Issue:
a) Whether Respondent could be held liable for alleged violation s of Section 3 (e)
of RA 3019

Elements for Section 3(e)

1) The Accused must be a Public Officer discharging administrative, judicial
or official functions
2) He must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence and
3) Action caused any undue injury to any party

b) Whether Respondent could be held liable for alleged violation s of Section 3 (j) of
RA 3019
Held:

2) He must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence (Main Element)

Failure to exert due diligence in the issuance opinion regarding the

recognition of the officers, PRC based their decision on the Omnibus Resolution
that does not conclusive state that the Conti group is the president of PSME.
The Omnibus Resolution mere states are the 15 man board members In
addition to the such it was discovered that PRC merely decided on the issue
within 1 day without due diligence as to the surrounding facts regarding the
issue presented to them.(After taking into consideration Br.24 Ruling)

During 2007, PRC likewise ruled on a similar issue regarding the same
association however with a different set of facts. The difference lies on the fact
that during at that time the election of officers had a quorum of 9 to which was
supported by the Comelecs Omnibus Resolution. Such inquiry regarding which
group was the legitimate one had a 9-day investigation period as compared to
the 2016 inquiry that was decided in a span of a day.

Another inexcusable negligence on the defendants part is the fact that

upon careful scrutiny of the facts and circulating the election of Engineer Conti
as president is that contrary to the resolution signed by Comelec Chair
Fuentecilla and Uy there was no quorum of the board members of such
election. Such was appreciated by the courts decision in the case of CC
no.15135040 Absence of a quorum of the election of officers it would be
improbable that Contis group had been duly elected as President. To support
such claim is the sworn affidavit of 8 of the 15 members stating among others
that they have not attended nor participated in any election conducted on
November 25, 2015 where Conti was allegedly elected as president and
supposedly had a quorum to conduct such elections yet after such still PRC
remained adamant in its decision in favor of Conti.

If the defendants duly exerted due diligence on deciding on the matter as

to which group had a valid claim to be the PSME National Officers it would have
been apparent that based from the Omnibus Resolution alone that it would
have been improbable to infer much less arrive at a decision that the Contis
group is the valid set of officers as there was no basis to arrive to such
conclusion as if a proper investigation was made it would have been apparent
that 8 of the 15 elected board members was against Contis group.

To reiterate what has been discussed given claims of the plaintiff against
the Contis group it should have warranted the PRC group to inquire about the
credibility of these claims as well as ascertain its veracity however due to
unscrupulous and reasons not known to anyone the defendants were insistent
on its ruling and no legitimate effort was made to establish such ruling apart
from basing its decision on the faulty Omnibus Resolution.