EN BANC
[G.R. No. 189712. November 27, 2018.]
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, petitioner, vs.CAYETANO A. TEJANO, JR., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution datedNOVEMBER 27, 2018, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 189712 (PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner, v. CAYETANO A. TEJANO, JR., Respondent.) — The petitioner seeks the reconsideration of the resolution promulgated on August 2, 2016, 1 whereby the Court affirmed the decision promulgated on May 29, 2009 by the Court of Appeals (CA) that disposed as follows: 2
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The assailed CSC Resolution No. 080606 dated April 10, 2008 and Resolution No. 081563 dated July 24, 2008 are hereby AFFIRMED subject to the qualification that the order for the reinstatement of respondent Cayetano A. Tejano, Jr. into the service sans back salaries shall be effected only if he has not reached his compulsory retirement age. Otherwise, he shall instead be entitled to the retirement benefits in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED.3
The petitioner argues that the respondent should no longer be entitled to receive any benefits because the Sandiganbayan had convicted him on March 17, 2003 for violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019 in Criminal Case No. 24675 entitled People of the Philippines v. Dolores Avancillo, Cayetano A. Tejano, Jr. and Amelia Fufunan; 4 that the conviction in Criminal Case No. 24675 became final and executory on October 26, 2003; that pursuant to the mandatory language of Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019, he had thus lost all retirement and gratuity benefits; 5 and that his conviction in Criminal Case No. 24675 rendered the directive to still pay the retirement benefits to him legally unwarranted. 6
The respondent counters that the facts herein and those in Criminal Case No. 24675 decided by the Sandiganbayan were different; that even in its judgment of conviction the Sandiganbayan did not declare the forfeiture of his retirement benefits as an additional penalty; and that the petitioner's argument manifested a continuing and deliberate strategy to frustrate the grant of benefits legally due to him. 7
The Court notes that the petitioner did not raise any substantial argument against the findings made in the resolution; that what the petitioner desired was to have Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019 apply in relation to the directive of the CA to pay the respondent his retirement and gratuity benefits; hence, the petitioner was praying for the modification of the resolution by deleting the award of retirement benefits in his favor.
We DENY the motion for reconsideration.
To start with, the respondent's conviction did not arise from the same set of facts pertinent to this administrative case. Specifically, the criminal case involved his accommodation of a check to cover up an unauthorized loan that he had approved, while this administrative case arose from his approval of loans taken by the petitioner's corporate clients.
Secondly, the respondent's conviction by the Sandiganbayan did not occur during the pendency of this case, or even after the promulgation of our assailed resolution. As such, it was not a supervening event that the Court could properly consider as a factor that should affect the outcome herein.
In this regard, the petitioner had the burden as the party to be greatly affected by any adverse decision or ruling thereon to seasonably update the Court and the CA about any matter or development that might affect the outcome of the case. However, the petitioner did not bring the respondent's conviction to the notice of the CA despite having the opportunity to do so. Its belatedly bringing the conviction of the respondent and the supposed consequences thereof to our attention now, being procedurally out of order, cannot be tolerated.
And, thirdly, the petitioner's urging for us to delete the portion on the payment of the respondent's retirement benefits on the basis of Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019 mandating the automatic forfeiture of the retirement benefits of the respondent upon his conviction lacks merit.
Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019 provides:
Sec. 13. Suspension and loss of benefits. — Any public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid information under this Act or under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on bribery is pending in court, shall be suspended from office. Should he be convicted by final judgment, he shall lose all retirement or gratuity benefits under any law, but if he is acquitted, he shall be entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries and benefits which he failed to receive during suspension, unless in the meantime administrative proceedings have been filed against him.
Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019 is not intended to be an automatic or self-operative provision; otherwise, Congress would have expressly stated so. As such, in order for the convicted public officer or employee to lose his retirement or gratuity benefits, the judgment should still expressly state so, because the forfeiture of benefits is an additional penalty not deemed automatically written into every final judgment of conviction in a criminal case but should be expressly decreed therein. Yet, the judgment of conviction was silent thereon, as the decretal portion thereof shows, to wit:
WHEREFORE, finding the presence of conspiracy in the commission of the crime between accused Tejano and Arancillo, the former is hereby declared guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019 and is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of 6 years, two months and 1 day as minimum to 15 years as maximum.
xxx xxx xxx
SO ORDERED. 8
In fine, the penalty of forfeiture of retirement benefits based on the respondent's conviction in a criminal case alien to the present administrative case should not be enforced. To do so would be unjust because, in the first place, the judgment of the Sandiganbayan did not expressly impose such penalty in convicting him; and, in the second place, the penalty of forfeiture was inappropriate in the instant case, and the respondent, despite our decision in his favor, would be left with a mere paper victory. Justice demands that he should be granted his retirement benefits by reason of the wrongful forced resignation that the petitioner had imposed on him. Hence, we do not find any good reason to disturb our assailed resolution.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the motion for reconsideration; and DIRECTS the issuance of the entry of judgment immediately." Peralta and Tijam, JJ., on official business. (8)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETAClerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 417-422.
2.Id. at 7-16.
3.Id. at 15.
4.Id. at 425.
5.Id. at 459.
6.Id. at 424-425.
7.Id. at 452.
8.Id. at 444-445.