When ‘Following Orders’ Doesn’t Shield You: A Philippine Legal Lesson

n

LUIS A. TABUENA, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 103501-03, FEBRUARY 17, 1997]

n

Imagine a government employee instructed by a superior to process a payment that seems… off. Maybe the paperwork is incomplete, or the recipient isn’t quite right. Do they blindly follow orders, or risk insubordination? This dilemma highlights a critical question in Philippine law: When does obedience to a superior’s command excuse a public official from criminal liability? The Supreme Court case of Luis A. Tabuena vs. Sandiganbayan tackles this very issue, offering vital insights into the responsibilities of public servants.

n

In this case, Luis A. Tabuena, the General Manager of the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA), and Adolfo M. Peralta, the Acting Finance Services Manager, were charged with malversation for disbursing P55 million in MIAA funds based on a Presidential directive. The Supreme Court ultimately acquitted them, sparking considerable debate about the limits of obedience in the face of potentially unlawful orders.

nn

The Legal Framework: Justifying Circumstances and Malversation

n

To fully grasp the Supreme Court’s decision, it’s essential to understand the legal principles at play. The Revised Penal Code outlines “justifying circumstances” that exempt individuals from criminal liability. One such circumstance, found in Article 11(6), applies to:

n

“Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.”

n

However, this isn’t a blank check. The order must genuinely appear lawful, and the subordinate must act without knowledge of its illegality. The subordinate-superior relationship must be clear.

n

Now, let’s define malversation. Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code penalizes public officials who, through negligence or intent, misappropriate public funds or allow others to do so. This crime can be committed through either:

n

n
• Intentional Malversation: Deliberately taking or misusing public funds.

n

• Malversation through Negligence: Allowing someone else to misappropriate funds due to carelessness or lack of oversight.

n

n

The prosecution initially charged Tabuena and Peralta with intentional malversation, alleging they conspired to defraud the government. However, the Sandiganbayan convicted them of malversation through negligence, finding they had failed to exercise due diligence in disbursing the funds.

n

Imagine a city treasurer ordered by the mayor to release funds for a project without proper documentation. If the treasurer knows the project is fraudulent but complies anyway, they are likely guilty of intentional malversation. If they release the funds without checking the documentation, they could be liable for malversation through negligence.

nn

The Tabuena Case: A Story of Presidential Orders and Disputed Funds

n

The case revolves around a presidential memorandum from then-President Ferdinand Marcos directing Tabuena to pay P55 million to the Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC) as partial payment for MIAA’s account. The payment was to be made immediately and in cash