FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 247303. October 6, 2021.]
HEIRS OF ROMEO P. DUCA, * REPRESENTED BY WIFE YOLANDA ANG-OAY DUCA, BABY RHODALYNE DUCA-GALUTAN, ** MA. JUANITA CARIDAD DUCA-DE PERALTA and ROYAL EMERALD ANG-OAY DUCA, ***petitioners, vs. MAYOR JESUS M. SAGAY, ****respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated October 6, 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 247303 — HEIRS OF ROMEO P. DUCA, represented by wife YOLANDA ANG-OAY DUCA, BABY RHODALYNE DUCA-GALUTAN, MA. JUANITA CARIDAD DUCA-DE PERALTA and ROYAL EMERALD ANG-OAY DUCA, petitioners,versus MAYOR JESUS M. SAGAY, respondent.
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 (Petition) under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision 2 dated November 21, 2018 and Resolution 3 dated April 29, 2019 of the Court of Appeals 4 (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 148954.
Facts
The facts, as summarized by the CA, are as follows:
On 22 July 2014, [prior to his death, petitioner] Romeo P. Duca [(Duca)] filed before the Office of the Ombudsman an Affidavit-Complaint for graft and corruption, serious and grave misconduct, and dishonesty against [respondent] Jesus M. Sagay [(Sagay)]. Both parties were then elected public officials of the Municipality of Lidlidda, Ilocos Sur — [Duca] as Municipal Councilor and [Sagay] as the Municipal Mayor.
[Duca] alleged the following: (a) the Municipal Council of Lidlidda enacted Appropriation Ordinance No. 73-2013 for the purpose of appropriating funds for various projects in the municipality, including the establishment of demo farms for crops and livestock; (b) pursuant thereto, the Municipal Council issued Resolution No. 08-2014 identifying a 29,806 sq. m. lot in Lapog, Poblacion Norte, Lidlidda as one of the demo farm sites; (c) the Municipal Government of Lidlidda likewise purchased a lot in Suyoc, Lidlidda to serve as a site for demo farm; (d) [Sagay], disregarding the Municipal Council, caused the development of a demo farm in a lot owned by his sister, Hilda Sagay, 5 located at Bara[c]bac, San Vicente, Lidlidda; (e) in doing so, [Sagay] used the municipal funds and availed of the services of the municipality's kamaneros (road laborers) and grader equipment without authority from the Municipal Council; (f) accordingly, the Municipal Council issued Resolution No. 36-2014 terminating the establishment of a demo farm in Baracbac, San Vicente, Lidlidda; (g) despite said issuance, [Sagay] pursued the completion of the demo farm in his sister's lot, utilizing the municipality's resources; (h) the Municipal Council demanded the return of the money used by [Sagay] in the development of his sister's land, but to no avail; (i) the acts of [Sagay] caused prejudice and damage to the people of Lidlidda.
The Affidavit-Complaint above was treated as two (2) separate criminal and administrative complaints docketed as OMB-L-C-14-0180 for violation of Section 3, paragraphs (e) and (h) of R.A. No. 3019 [(criminal complaint)] and OMB-L-A-14-0584 [(administrative complaint)] for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, respectively. 6
Decision of the Office of the Ombudsman
On December 17, 2014, the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) rendered a Decision 7 in the administrative complaint, OMB-L-A-14-0584, finding respondent Mayor Jesus M. Sagay (Sagay) guilty of grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
On the same day, the Ombudsman also issued a Resolution in the criminal case, OMB-L-C-14-0180, recommending that Sagay be indicted for violation of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 3019 8 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and R.A. 7160 9 and that Informations be filed against him in court. 10
Meanwhile, Sagay sought re-election as municipal mayor of Lidlidda, Ilocos Sur during the May 2016 elections and emerged victorious. 11
Subsequently, Sagay moved for reconsideration of the Ombudsman's December 17, 2014 rulings in the criminal and administrative cases. However, this motion was denied by the Ombudsman in a Joint Order dated August 11, 2016. 12
Aggrieved, Sagay elevated the matter before the CA via Petition for Review under Rule 43 (Petition for Review).
Rulings of the CA
In a Decision 13 dated November 21, 2018, the CA partly granted the Petition for Review and ruled that the condonation doctrine should be applied in favor of Sagay. The CA emphasized that, while Sagay questioned both the criminal and administrative aspects of the Ombudsman's Joint Order dated August 11, 2016, it only had jurisdiction over orders, directives, and decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases, hence, it only limited its resolution to the administrative aspect of the case. 14 It noted that the condonation doctrine is still applicable in cases that transpired prior to the Court's ruling in Carpio-Morales v. CA (Sixth Division). 15 Considering that the complaint against Sagay was filed prior to the abandonment of the condonation doctrine, it should be applied in his favor. Thus, the issue on whether Sagay was indeed guilty of the acts imputed against him as to hold him administratively liable had been rendered moot and academic. 16 The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The assailed Joint Order dated 11 August 2016 issued by the Office of the Ombudsman is hereby SET ASIDE, but only insofar as the administrative aspect thereof is concerned. Accordingly, the Complaint in OMB-L-A-14-0584 is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.17 (Emphasis in the original)
Thereafter, Sagay filed an Urgent Motion for Execution (Motion) and asked for further clarification of the Decision as to backwages from the time he stepped down until the issuance of the CA Decision. 18 On the other hand, the heirs of the deceased Romeo P. Duca (heirs of Duca) filed a Motion for Reconsideration (MR). 19 aScITE
On April 29, 2019, the CA issued the assailed Resolution 20 resolving both motions. As to Sagay's Motion, the CA noted that the Office of the Ombudsman did not file any comment thereto and instead filed a Manifestation stating that it was submitting to the sound discretion of the CA the resolution of said Motion. 21 The CA granted Sagay's Motion, ruling that the penalty of dismissal from office, with all its accessory penalties, imposed by the Ombudsman against Sagay must be immediately lifted and that Sagay shall be paid the salaries and other emoluments that he did not receive by reason of his dismissal. 22
On the other hand, the CA denied the MR filed by the heirs of Duca on the ground that Duca was a mere witness for the government in the administrative case against Sagay, hence, he was not per se adversely affected by the Decision exonerating Sagay from administrative charges, and Duca and his heirs had no personality to move for its reconsideration. 23
The decretal portion of the CA Resolution reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's Urgent Motion for Execution is GRANTED.
The Court hereby directs and orders the IMMEDIATE EXECUTION of the Decision dated 21 November 2018 in CA-G.R. SP No. 148954. Accordingly, the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) is ordered to reinstate petitioner Jesus M. Sagay to his position as Municipal Mayor of Lidlidda, Ilocos Sur; to pay petitioner backwages and all benefits which would have accrued in his favor from the time he was dismissed up to his actual reinstatement; and to lift the accessory penalties of perpetual disqualification to hold public office and cancellation of eligibility.
On the other hand, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the heirs of private respondent Romeo P. Duca is DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.24 (Emphasis and italics in the original)
Thus, the heirs of Duca filed the instant Petition before the Court praying mainly that the backwages and all benefits due to Sagay be deleted on the ground that Sagay had belatedly raised his claims thereto and he should have filed an MR to amend the CA Decision instead.
Following the Court's directive, Sagay filed a Comment and Manifestation 25 dated December 4, 2020. Therein, Sagay narrated, among others, that on July 20, 2018, the Sandiganbayan promulgated its Decision 26 (Sandiganbayan Decision) finding Sagay not guilty of all charges against him in the criminal case (OMB-L-C-14-0180, docketed in Sandiganbayan as SB-17-CRM-1427 to 1428). In absolving Sagay, the Sandiganbayan found that "[t]he prosecution failed to show that accused acted in evident bad faith, manifest partiality, or gross inexcusable negligence. It was shown that he was authorized by the Sangguniang Bayan to enter into a MOA with ISPSC x x x [and that t]he choice of Baracbac as a demo farm site came from ISPSC and not herein accused." 27 The Sandiganbayan Decision stated that "[t]here is x x x nothing on record to show that Sagay stands to benefit or suffer a loss financially, either directly or indirectly, by the use or development of the property of his sister's land as demo farm for pigeon pea plantation." 28 The dispositive portion of the Sandiganbayan Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Court finds accused Jesus Manugan Sagay NOT GUILTY x x x and is, therefore, ACQUITTED of the charges in SB-17-CRM-1427 and SB-17-CRM-1428.
As the act or omission from which the civil liability might arise did not exist, no civil liability may be assessed against accused Sagay.
xxx xxx xxx
SO ORDERED. 29 (Emphasis in the original)
Issue
The issue is whether the CA correctly awarded backwages and benefits to Sagay.
The Court's Ruling
The CA committed no reversible error in granting backwages and benefits to Sagay. At the outset, as correctly held by the CA, Duca as the complainant, was merely a witness for the government which is the real party in interest. Hence, he and his heirs do not have legal personality to move for the reconsideration of the CA Decision, especially since the Ombudsman did not dispute the ruling of the CA dismissing the complaint or requiring the filing of a comment on the motion for execution filed by Sagay.
Even assuming, however, that the heirs of Duca had legal personality to move for reconsideration of the CA Decision, there is no basis for deleting the backwages and all other benefits ordered to be awarded to Sagay. The statement in the CA Resolution stating that Sagay was entitled to backwages and all benefits which would have accrued in his favor from the time he was dismissed up to his actual reinstatement is but a mere consequence of his exoneration, as provided in Section 7, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, as amended, viz.:
SECTION 7. Finality and Execution of Decision. — x x x
An appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory. In case the penalty is suspension or removal and the respondent wins such appeal, he shall be considered as having been under preventive suspension and shall be paid the salary and such other emoluments that he did not receive by reason of the suspension or removal.
A decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases shall be executed as a matter of course. The Office of the Ombudsman shall ensure that the decision shall be strictly enforced and properly implemented. The refusal or failure by any officer without just cause to comply with an order of the Office of the Ombudsman to remove, suspend, demote, fine, or censure shall be a ground for disciplinary action against said officer. 30 (Emphasis supplied)
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated November 21, 2018 and Resolution dated April 29, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 148954 are AFFIRMED.
In line with existing jurisprudence, 31 the total monetary awards given to respondent Mayor Jesus M. Sagay shall be subject to six percent (6%) interest per annum from the finality of this Resolution until full satisfaction.
Respondent's motion to admit comment with thereto attached comment on the petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED; and respondent is hereby required to SUBMIT, within five (5) days from notice hereof, the soft copies of signed motion to admit comment with attached comment on the petition for review on certiorari, sincere apologies, and the signed comment and manifestation re: petition for review on certiorari pursuant to A.M. Nos. 10-3-7-SC and 11-9-4-SC. The Court also AWAITS the petitioners' full compliance with the Resolution dated June 19, 2019.
SO ORDERED." HEITAD
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* Also Romeo P. Ducay in some parts of the rollo.
** Also Baby Rhodalyn Duca-Galutan in some parts of the rollo.
*** Also Emerald Ang-Oay Duca in some parts of the rollo.
**** Also Mayor Jesus M. Dagay and Jesus Sagay y Manugan in some parts of the rollo.
1.Rollo, pp. 12-28, excluding Annexes.
2.Id. at 31-40. Penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan (now a Member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Maria Filomena D. Singh.
3.Id. at 42-46.
4. Sixth (6th) Division and Former Sixth (6th) Division, respectively.
5. Also Herminigilda Sagay in some parts of the rollo.
6.Id. at 32-33.
7.Id. at 71-79. Penned by Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer (GIPO) II Irmina H. Bautista, reviewed by Reviewing GIPO III & Head, EIO-Zero Backlog Unit Margie G. Fernandez-Calpatura, and approved by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales.
8. Approved on August 17, 1960.
9. AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991, approved on October 10, 1991.
10.Rollo, pp. 33-34.
11.Id.
12.Id. at 35.
13.Supra note 2.
14.Id. at 37.
15. G.R. Nos. 217126-27, November 10, 2015, 774 SCRA 341.
16.Rollo, pp. 38-39.
17.Id. at 39-40.
18.Id. at 80.
19.Id. at 42.
20.Supra note 3.
21.Id. at 43.
22.Id. at 44-45.
23.Id. at 45.
24.Id. at 45-46.
25.Id. at 99-106.
26.People v. Sagay, SB-17-CRM-1427 & SB-17-CRM-1428, July 20, 2018, penned by Associate Justice Geraldine Faith A. Econg and concurred in by Associate Justices Efren N. De La Cruz and Edgardo M. Caldona, accessed at <https://sb.judiciary.gov.ph/DECISIONS/2018/G_Crim_SB-17-CRM-1427-1428_People%20vs%20Sagay_07_20_2018.pdf>.
27.Id. at 24. Underscoring supplied.
28.Id. at 29.
29.Id. at 31.
30. RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, as amended by Administrative Order No. 17-03 dated September 15, 2003.
31.Nacar v. Gallery Frames, G.R. No. 189871, August 13, 2013, 703 SCRA 439.