The Supreme Court ruled in Velasco v. Sandiganbayan that a mayor can be held liable for violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act if they knowingly authorize payments to an employee who has been dismissed by the Civil Service Commission (CSC). Even if the mayor wasn’t a party to the CSC case, they have a duty to enforce the CSC’s resolutions. This decision clarifies the responsibilities of local government executives in ensuring compliance with CSC orders and safeguarding public funds, thus preventing unwarranted benefits to individuals at the expense of the government.

When Local Authority Overrides Civil Service Mandates

Pacifico Velasco, then Mayor of Bacarra, Ilocos Norte, faced charges for violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The case stemmed from Mayor Velasco’s decision to continue paying the salary and benefits of the Municipal Engineer, Emmanuel Agonoy, after the CSC had ordered Agonoy’s dismissal for gross neglect of duty. Despite knowing about the CSC resolution, Mayor Velasco issued memoranda directing the Municipal Treasurer to release Agonoy’s salary, Representation and Transportation Allowance (RATA), and other benefits. This happened even after the Court of Appeals (CA) had denied Agonoy’s petition for review of the CSC decision. The core legal question was whether Mayor Velasco’s actions constituted giving unwarranted benefits to Agonoy, thereby violating the anti-graft law.

The Sandiganbayan denied Mayor Velasco’s motion to quash the information, leading him to file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. Velasco argued that he was not bound by the CSC resolution because he was not a party to the case. He also claimed that he had no directive from the CSC to implement its resolution and that the CSC resolution was not immediately executory. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed, affirming the Sandiganbayan’s decision and emphasizing the mayor’s duty to uphold and enforce CSC resolutions.

The Supreme Court anchored its decision on Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, which penalizes public officers who cause undue injury to the government or give unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference to any private party through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. The Court cited Librada M. Cabrera, et al. v. Sandiganbayan, outlining the essential elements of this offense:

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 inexcusable negligence; and
3. His action caused undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the discharge of his functions.

The Court clarified that a violation could occur through either causing undue injury or giving unwarranted benefits, and the use of the disjunctive term “or” means that either act qualifies as a violation. This ruling underscores that public officials can be held accountable for either causing harm or providing undue advantages, reinforcing the law’s broad scope in preventing corruption.

The Supreme Court emphasized that as Municipal Mayor, Velasco was responsible for ensuring that all municipal officials and employees faithfully discharged their duties as provided by law, as stipulated in Section 444(b)(x) of the Local Government Code (Rep. Act No. 7160). This responsibility includes enforcing decisions, resolutions, orders, or rulings of the CSC. Moreover, under Section 83 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, a local chief executive may be cited for contempt if they willfully refuse or fail to implement a final resolution of the CSC.

The Court noted that while it is essential for the implementing agency to have knowledge of the CSC resolution, it is not necessary for the official to be a direct party to the case. In this instance, Mayor Velasco admitted to knowing about the CSC resolution dismissing Agonoy. Despite this knowledge, he issued memoranda to the Municipal Treasurer to continue paying Agonoy’s salary and benefits. The Supreme Court held that Velasco should have known that the CSC resolution would become executory if Agonoy did not file a motion for reconsideration. The Court pointed out that Section 80 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service states:

Section 80. Execution of Decision. – The decisions of the Commission Proper or its Regional Offices shall be immediately executory after fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof, unless a motion for reconsideration is seasonably filed, in which case the execution of the decision shall be held in abeyance.

Although Agonoy filed a petition for review in the CA and the Supreme Court, neither court issued a stay order. Thus, Mayor Velasco’s decision to continue paying Agonoy was a direct defiance of the CSC resolution. The Court further noted that while there was no evidence that Mayor Velasco was informed that Agonoy did not file a motion for reconsideration, he should have verified this information before issuing the memoranda. The failure to do so constituted gross negligence.

The Court concluded that Mayor Velasco’s actions gave unwarranted benefits to Agonoy and caused undue injury to the government, as Agonoy received P375,168.00 in salary, RATA, and other benefits after his dismissal. Thus, the Supreme Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s decision, finding that the information filed against Mayor Velasco contained all the essential elements of a violation of Section 3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019. The Supreme Court ruling underscores the importance of public officials adhering to decisions and resolutions of the Civil Service Commission and highlights the potential legal ramifications of failing to do so.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Mayor Velasco violated Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act by continuing to pay the salary and benefits of an employee dismissed by the Civil Service Commission. The Supreme Court had to determine if this action constituted giving unwarranted benefits to the employee.
What is Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019?	Section 3(e) of RA 3019 prohibits public officials from causing undue injury to the government or giving unwarranted benefits to any private party through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. It’s a key provision in the Philippines’ anti-corruption framework.
Was Mayor Velasco a party to the CSC case against Agonoy?	No, Mayor Velasco was not a party to the CSC case against Agonoy. However, the Supreme Court ruled that this did not excuse him from enforcing the CSC’s resolution as the local chief executive.
What is the significance of the term “or” in Section 3(e) of RA 3019?	The use of the disjunctive term “or” in Section 3(e) means that a public official can be found liable for either causing undue injury to the government or giving unwarranted benefits to a private party. Both acts are separate and distinct violations of the law.
What is the role of the Civil Service Commission (CSC)?	The Civil Service Commission is the central personnel agency of the Philippine government. It is responsible for administering the civil service laws and ensuring that government employees are qualified and perform their duties effectively.
What does the Local Government Code say about the duties of a mayor?	The Local Government Code (Rep. Act No. 7160) mandates that the municipal mayor, as the chief executive, ensures that all executive officials and employees faithfully discharge their duties as provided by law. This includes enforcing decisions of the CSC.
What is the effect of filing a petition for review on the execution of a CSC decision?	The filing of a petition for review does not automatically stay the execution of a CSC decision. A stay order must be issued by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court to suspend the implementation of the decision.
What was the outcome of the Supreme Court’s decision?	The Supreme Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s decision, finding that Mayor Velasco’s actions constituted a violation of Section 3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
What is RATA?	RATA stands for Representation and Transportation Allowance. It is a benefit given to certain government officials to cover expenses related to their official duties.

This case serves as a critical reminder to all local government officials about their responsibilities in upholding and enforcing decisions from government agencies like the Civil Service Commission. Public officials must exercise due diligence in ensuring compliance with these decisions to avoid potential legal repercussions under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: PACIFICO C. VELASCO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. NO. 160991, February 28, 2005