G.R. Nos. 219681-82 - Concurring Opinion




G.R. No. 219681-82/G.R. No. 219747, March 18, 2021, ♦ Decision, Gaerlan, [J] ♦ Concurring Opinion, Caguioa, [J] [ G.R. Nos. 219681-82, March 18, 2021 ] RANULFO C. FELICIANO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. [G.R. No. 219747, March 18, 2021] DR. CESAR A. AQUITANIA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. CONCURRING OPINION CAGUIOA, J.: I concur with the ponencia that petitioners Ranulfo C. Feliciano (petitioner Feliciano) and Cesar A. Aquitania (petitioner Aquitania) (collectively, petitioners) should be acquitted. I submit this separate concurring opinion if only to stress anew that a violation of a law that is not penal in nature does not, as it cannot, automatically translate into a violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019. Brief review of the facts Sometime during the takeover by Local Waters Utilities Administration (LWUA) of Leyte Metropolitan Water District (LMWD), an administrative case was filed against petitioner Feliciano for "unlawful approval of the disbursement of his backwages for the period of March 6, 1990 to October 23, 1990 during which he has not rendered service to LMWD." After investigation, the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel recommended the dismissal of petitioner Feliciano which the LWUA approved on November 11, 1991.1 After the takeover by the LWUA of LMWD's affairs was lifted in 1998, a new set of board of directors (BOD) of LMWD was appointed, including petitioner Aquitania who was designated as Vice Chairperson of the BOD. On September 25, 1998, the new BOD approved Resolution No. 98-002 where the BOD declared that it has the sole authority to appoint or dismiss the regular General Manager of LMWD. Upon motion of its members, petitioner Feliciano was appointed as General Manager of LMWD. On November 6, 1998, the BOD approved Resolution No. 98-33 which adjusted the monthly salary of petitioner Feliciano from P18,749.00 to P57,146.00 effective January 1998. On January 7, 1999, petitioner Feliciano received the amount of P506,246.26, representing the increase in his salary pursuant to Resolution No. 98-33. The Commission on Audit (COA) disallowed the payment of increased salary to petitioner Feliciano on post-audit. Thereafter, an Information for Violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019 was filed before the Sandiganbayan against petitioners and other members of the BOD of LMWD. Another Information for the crime of Malversation of Public Funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) was filed against petitioner Feliciano and other officers of the LMWD. The accusatory portion of the Information for Violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019 reads: That on or about the 6th day of November 1998, or for sometime prior or subsequent thereto, at the City of Tacloban, Province of Leyte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused HONORIO F. GEREZ, CESAR A. AQUITANIA, CONCEPCION G. MEDALLA, VIRGINA P. FLORES, and FRANKLIN A. SICOY, public officers being the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and Members, respectively, of the Board of Directors of the Leyte Metropolitan Water District (LMWD), Tacloban City, and as such officers had the authority to fix the compensation of the officers and employees of LMWD pursuant to the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 198, otherwise known as the Provincial Water Utilities Act of 1973, in such capacity and committing the offense in relation to office, conniving and confederating together and mutually helping with each other, and with accused RANULFO C. FELICIANO, likewise a public officer being the General Manager of LMWD, with deliberate intent, with grave abuse of authority with intent of giving respondent RANULFO C. FELICIANO excessive monetary benefits in office, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously enact and approve Resolution No. 98-33 entitled "A RESOLUTION ADJUSTING THE SALARY OF THE GENERAL MANAGER OF THE LEYTE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT (LMWD)," by means of which the salary of accused RANULFO C. FELICIANO, as General Manager of LMWD with salary grade twenty-five (25), was increased to Fifty-Seven Thousand One Hundred Forty Six Pesos (P57,146.00), Philippine Currency, per month, in total disregard of the Plantilla of Personnel verified by the Department of Budget and Management, which specifies that the position of General Manager occupied by accused RANULFO C. FELICIANO, carries the salary grade of Twenty-Five (25) at the rate of only Eighteen Thousand Seven Hundred Forty-Nine Pesos (P18,749.00), Philippine Currency, per month, thereby giving accused RANULFO C. FELICIANO unwarranted benefit and advantage in the discharge of their administrative functions through manifest partiality. CONTRARY TO LAW.2 The Sandiganbayan convicted petitioners for violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019 and Malversation of Public Funds under Article 217 of the RPC. In finding petitioners guilty of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, the Sandiganbayan held that as a local water district LMWD is a government-owned and controlled corporation under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission. As such, the compensation of its officers and personnel must conform to the salary schedule laid down in R.A. No. 6758.3 Petitioners separately filed their appeal which this Court resolved to consolidate. The element of manifest partiality was not present At the outset, it must be pointed out that the Information for Violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019 charged petitioners of committing the offense through manifest partiality only. Thus, my discussion will be limited to the same. There is manifest partiality when there is a clear, notorious, or plain inclination or predilection to favor one side or person rather than another. "'Partiality' is synonymous with 'bias' which 'excites a disposition to see and report matters as they are wished for rather than as they are."'4 Mere partiality is not sufficient — the same must be manifest. The ponente correctly found that when the BOD of LMWD approved Resolution No. 98-33 in 1998, it had basis to believe that it had the authority to increase the salary of petitioner Feliciano pursuant to Section 235 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 198.6 It was when the Court promulgated Mendoza v. Commission on Audit7 (Mendoza) in 2013 that the limits of Section 23 were clarified. In Mendoza, the Court ruled that the salary of a water district's general manager is covered by the Salary Standardization Law despite Section 23 of P.D. No. 198. While the law grants water districts the power to fix the compensation of their general managers, the same should be consistent with the Salary Standardization Law. Thus, when Resolution No. 98-33 was approved in 1998, the BOD of LMWD's interpretation of Section 23 of P.D. No. 198, no matter how erroneous, had basis. Since no manifest partiality can be attributed to petitioner Aquitania on the basis of the misinterpretation of Section 23 of P.D. No. 198, there is all the more reason to absolve petitioner Feliciano of any wrongdoing considering that he took no part in approving Resolution No. 98-33. When petitioner Feliciano approved the release of funds, he was merely acting on the basis of the authority given to him by the BOD of LMWD under Resolution No. 98-33. I reiterate my position in Villarosa v. People8 that not all violations of a law or regulation are equivalent to evident bad faith, manifest partiality, or gross inexcusable negligence even if it causes undue injury or gives unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to any party. I cannot, in good conscience, agree to punishing with imprisonment any and all violations of non-penal laws. It is true that public servants have a duty to know the limits of the authority granted to them. Yet, I cannot subscribe to the thinking that to do an act outside of those limits already constitutes manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence that is criminally punishable. If that is the case, then we might as well dispense with administrative proceedings — whether in the Civil Service Commission or in the Ombudsman — against public officials, for what is the sense of having a distinction between administrative and criminal cases when every single misstep merits a criminal sanction. R.A. No. 3019 was crafted as an anti-graft and corruption measure. The crux of the acts punishable under R.A. No. 3019 is corruption.ᇈWᑭHIL As explained by one of the sponsors of the law, Senator Arturo M. Tolentino, "[w]hile we are trying to penalize, the main idea of the bill is graft and corrupt practices. x x x Well, the idea of graft is the one emphasized."9 Graft entails the acquisition of gain in dishonest ways.10 For an act to fall under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, the same must be done with fraudulent and corrupt intent. Such is the purpose of R.A. No. 3019 which this Court is mandated to uphold. Based on the foregoing, I vote to ACQUIT petitioners Ranulfo C. Feliciano and Cesar A. Aquitania of the crime of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. Footnotes 1 Rollo (G.R. No. 219747), pp. 50-51. 2 Rollo (G.R. No. 219681-82), pp. 192-194. 3 AN ACT PRESCRIBING A REVISED COMPENSATION AND POSITION CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM IN THE GOVERNMENT AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, or the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989, approved August 21, 1989. 4 Villarosa v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 221418, January 23, 2019, 891 SCRA 244, 263. 5 Section 23. Additional Officers. — At the first meeting of the board, or as soon thereafter as practicable, the board shall appoint, by a majority vote, a general manager, an auditor, and an attorney, and shall define their duties and fix their compensation. Said officers shall service at the pleasure of the board. 6 DECLARING A NATIONAL POLICY FAVORING LOCAL OPERATION AND CONTROL OF WATER SYSTEMS; AUTHORIZING THE FORMATION OF LOCAL WATER DISTRICTS AND PROVIDING FOR THE GOVERNMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF SUCH DISTRICTS; CHARTERING A NATIONAL ADMINISTRATION TO FACILITATE IMPROVEMENT OF LOCAL WATER UTILITIES; GRANTING SAID ADMINISTRATION SUCH POWERS AS ARE NECESSARY TO OPTIMIZE PUBLIC SERVICE FROM WATER UTILITY OPERATIONS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, or the Provincial Water Utilities Act of 1973, issued May 25, 1973. 7 717 Phil. 491, 497 (2013). 8 G.R. Nos. No. 233155-63, June 23, 2020, accessed at . 9 Senate Deliberations of R.A. No. 3019 dated July 1960. 10 BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY (9th ed. 2009), p. 794. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation