FIRST DIVISION

G.R. Nos. 168951 & 169000 July 17, 2013

DR. ROGER R. POSADAS and DR. ROLANDO P. DAYCO, Petitioners,

vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

DECISION

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

Petitioners assail their conviction for Violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019 (The
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and Section 7(b) of R.A. No. 6713 (The Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) under Decision1 dated June 28, 2005 of the
Sandiganbayan in Crim. Case Nos. 25465-66.

The Facts

Petitioner Dr. Roger R. Posadas (Dr. Posadas), a Ph.D. in Relativity Physics graduate from the
University of Pittsburgh, is a longtime professor and former Dean of the College of Science at the
University of the Philippines-Diliman Campus (UP Diliman). He was appointed by the Board of
Regents (BOR) of the University of the Philippines System as UP Diliman Chancellor for a three-
year term starting November 1, 1993 and ending October 31, 1996.

During his term as Chancellor, Dr. Posadasisone of the leading figures in the emerging inter-
disciplinary field of technology management in the Philippines. Upon the recommendation of the
UP Diliman Task Force on Science and Technology Assessment, Management and Planning
composed of deans and professors from the various colleges in UP Diliman, the BOR on February
23, 1995 approved the establishment of the Technology Management Center (TMC) under the
direct supervision of the Office of the Chancellor, UP Diliman. When the TMC became operational
in June 1995, the Task Force on Science and Technology Assessment, Management and Planning
wrote then UP President Dr. Emil Q. Javier, nominating Dr. Posadas for the position of TMC
Director. For undisclosed reason, Dr. Posadas declined the nomination and instead he (Dr.
Posadas) designated Prof. Jose Tabbada of the College of Public Administration as Acting Director
of TMC.

On July 26, 1995, Dr. Posadas submitted to the National Economic and Development Authority
(NEDA) an Application for Funding of his proposed project entitled "Institutionalization of
Technology Management at the University of the Philippines in Diliman" (TMC Project). The TMC
Project, to be funded by a grant from the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA),
aimed to design and develop ten new graduate courses in technology management for the
diploma, masters and doctoral programs to be offered by TMC.2

On September 18, 1995, a Memorandum of Agreement3 (MOA) was executed between Dr.
Posadas, on behalf of UP-Diliman, and the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) as
the Local Executing Agency of the Policy, Training and Technical Assistance Facility (PTTAF) of
CIDA. Under the MOA, CIDA shall provide the funding for the total project cost (5,442,400.00),
with the NEDA as the designated PTTAF Project Implementor for the Government of the
Philippines, while UP Diliman shall direct, manage and implement all activities under the approved
project with counterpart funding in the amount of 4,228,524.00.

In a letter dated July 30, 1995, the President of Hua Qiao University in Fujian Province, China
invited Dr. Posadas and a delegation from UP Dilimanto visit on October 30 to November 6, 1995.
On October 5, 1995, then Senior Deputy Executive Secretary Leonardo A. Quisumbing (retired
Member of this Court) issued the Authority to Travel for the UP Diliman delegation headed by Dr.
Posadas. Among those who joined the delegation were Dr. Amaryllis Torres and Dr. Rosario Yu,
UP Dilimans Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Vice-Chancellor for Student Affairs,
respectively.4 Under Administrative Order (AO) No. 95-170 dated October 24, 1995, Dr. Posadas
designated petitioner Dr. Rolando P. Dayco (Dr. Dayco), Vice-Chancellor for Administrative Affairs,
as Officer-In-Charge (OIC) of UPDiliman effective October 30, 1995 until November 6, 1995. This
was followed by AO No. 95-170-A dated October 27, 1995, which amended the previous order by
extendingthe OIC designation of Dr. Dayco to November 7, 1995.5

On November 7, 1995, Dr. Dayco appointed Dr. Posadas as Project Director of UP TMC effective
September 18, 1995 up to September 17, 1996.In another undated "Contract for Consultancy
Services" signed by Dr. Dayco, Dr. Posadas was hired as Consultant for the TMC Project for the
same period.6 As evidenced by disbursement vouchers and admitted by Dr. Posadas, the latter
received his "honoraria"(30,000.00 per month) and consultancy fees (totaling 100,000.00) as
Project Director and Consultant of the TMC Project until May 1996 when the Commission on Audit
(COA) raised questions on the legality of the said fees.7

In August 1996, payment of the subject "honoraria" and fees was suspended by COA Resident
Auditor Romeo J. Pulido who noted the following deficiencies:

1. Honoraria were in excess of the rates provided for under the National Compensation Circular
No. 73, dated March 1, 1996, x x x.

2. Legal basis for designating the incumbent Chancellor as Project Director by the Officer-In-
Charge (OIC), considering that the latter can assume the post only in the absence of the former.
An OIC cannot validly designate since the authority to designate/appoint is among the functions of
the Chancellor which cannot be delegated as provided in the University Charter. Moreover, the
authority to appoint can never be delegated since it involves discretion.

3. On the assumption that the designation of the Chancellor as Project Director and Consultant is
valid, collecting the remuneration for both positions amount to double compensation which is
contrary to existing auditing rules and regulations.8

In a Memorandum9 dated September 16, 1996, UPs Chief Legal Officer Marichu C. Lambino
addressed the foregoing concerns of COA Auditor Pulido.Atty. Lambino stated that (a) the
compensation received by Dr. Posadas are in the nature of consultancy fees and hence expressly
exempted by Department of Budget and Management (DBM) National Compensation Circular
(NCC) No. 75 dated March 11, 1995; (b) the TMC Project, being a training program, is likewise
exempted from the coverage of NEDA Guidelines on the Procurement of Consulting Services for
Government Projects; and (c) under Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular (MC)
No. 43, series of 1993 "Streamlining and Deregulating Human Resource Development Functions"
UP is authorized, without prior approval from the CSC, to determine the rates of honorarium for
government personnel participating as resource persons, coordinator, and facilitator, in training
programs. On the issue of double compensation, Atty. Lambino pointed out that Dr. Posadas was
appointed Project Director because of managerial expertise, and his skills in supervising personnel
who are involved in an academic undertaking, and as Consultant because of his expertise in
technology management. Finding these explanations/justifications acceptable, Auditor Pulido lifted
the notices of suspension in September 1997.

However, even before the issuance of the suspension notices, then UP President Dr. Emil Q.
Javier, ordered an investigation on the basis of an administrative complaint filed by Mrs. Ofelia L.
Del Mundo, a staff of the University Library who was detailed at the TMC as its Administrative
Officer. On July 24, 1996, President Javier created a Fact-Finding Committee to gather, review and
evaluate pertinent documents regarding certain transactions of the TMC.10 After the conduct of a
preliminary investigation and finding a prima facie case against the petitioners, President Javier
issued the formal charges11 for Grave Misconduct and Abuse of Authority. Pursuant to the
Universitys "Rules and Regulations on the Discipline of Faculty Members and Employees
approved at the 704th Meeting of the Board of Regents on January 11, 1963,"12 an Administrative
Disciplinary Tribunal (ADT) was constituted, chaired by Atty. Arturo E. Balbastro, a faculty member
of the UP College of Law.

On August 21, 1998, the ADT submitted its Report13 (ADT Case 96-001) to President Javier. The
ADT found petitioners guilty of serious or grave misconduct and recommended the penalty of
dismissal in accordance with CSC Memorandum Circular No. 30, series of 1989, as well as Article
250 of the University Code. The Report likewise stated that the acts of petitioners for which they
were held administratively liable may warrant prosecution under Section 3(h) and (i) of R.A. No.
3019. Under the Order14 dated August 25, 1998 signed by President Javier, petitioners were
dismissed from the service.

On September 3, 1998, Atty. Carmelita Yadao-Guno in her capacity as General Counsel of UP

formally endorsed the findings and recommendations of the ADT to the Ombudsman.15 The case
was docketed as OMB-0-98-1843.

Meanwhile, the BOR at its 1126th meeting on November 26, 1998, resolved petitioners appeal in
ADT Case 96-001, as follows:

1. The Board affirmed the ADT decision finding the respondents guilty of grave misconduct and
imposed on them the penalty of forced resignation with the accessory penalties defined in the
Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order 292 and other Pertinent Civil Service
Laws i.e., cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of all leave credits and retirement benefits, and
disqualification from government service for one year.

2. If after one year they should reapply to the University, they must render an apology to the
University and their reappointments will be subject to Board approval.

3. The respondents are permanently disqualified from holding any administrative position in the
University.

4. The decision takes effect immediately.16

Satisfied with the BORs action, petitioners caused the withdrawal of their appeal before the
CSC.17

On June 9, 1999, the Evaluation and Preliminary Investigation Bureau of the Office of Ombudsman
recommended the dismissal of the charges against petitioners for insufficiency of evidence.
However, said recommendation was disapproved by then Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto who
ordered that petitioners be indicted for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and Section 7(b)
in relation to Section 11 of R.A. No. 6713.18

The corresponding Informations19 were thus filed against the petitioners before the
Sandiganbayan (Criminal Case Nos. 25465-66), as follow:

Criminal Case No. 25465

That on or about 7 November 1995, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in Quezon City,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, both
high-ranking public officers, ROGER DELA ROSA POSADAS, being then the Chancellor and a
faculty member of the University of the Philippines-Diliman Campus, and ROLANDO PASCUAL
DAYCO, being then the Vice-Chancellor of the said university and Officer-In-Charge of the Office
of the Chancellor, committing the crime herein charged in relation to, while in the performance and
taking advantage of their official and administrative functions, and conspiring and confederating
with and mutually helping each other, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally give
unwarranted benefits, privilege or advantage to accused POSADAS, when accused DAYCO
appointed or designated accused POSADAS as a Project Director of the lone project,
Institutionalization of the Management of Technology at U.P. Diliman, of the Technology
Management Center (TMC) of the Office of the Chancellor, U.P. Diliman, which enabled or caused
the disbursement and payment of monthly salary of 30,000.00 of accused POSADAS, duly
received by the latter, for the period 18 September 1995 to 17 September 1996, with accused
POSADAS also receiving his salaries as Chancellor and faculty member of U.P. Diliman during this
period, and both accused knowing fully well that the appointment of accused POSADAS was
beyond the power or authority of accused DAYCO as an OIC and likewise violative of the law,
rules and regulations against multiple positions, double compensation and retroactivity of
appointment, thereby causing undue injury to the Government in the amount of PESOS: THREE
HUNDRED SIXTY THOUSAND (360,000.00), to the damage and prejudice of the Government.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Criminal Case No. 25466

That on or about 7 November 1995, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in Quezon City,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, both
high-ranking public officers, ROGER DELA ROSA POSADAS, being then the Chancellor and a
faculty member of the University of the Philippines-Diliman Campus, and ROLANDO PASCUAL
DAYCO, being then the ViceChancellor of the said university and Officer-In-Charge of the Office of
the Chancellor, committing the crime herein charged in relation to, while in the performance and
taking advantage of their official and administrative functions, and conspiring and confederating
with and mutually helping each other, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally engage
in the unauthorized private practice of accused POSADASs profession as a technology manager,
when accused DAYCO appointed or designated accused POSADAS as a consultant to the project,
Institutionalization of the Management of Technology at U.P. Diliman, of the Technology
Management Center (TMC) of the Office of the Chancellor, U.P. Diliman, which enabled or caused
the disbursement and payment of consultancy fees in the amount of 100,000.00 to accused
POSADAS, duly received by the latter, with respondent POSADAS also receiving his salaries as
Chancellor and faculty member of U.P. Diliman, and both accused knowing fully well that the
appointment to and acceptance of the position of consultant by respondent POSADAS was without
authority from the latters superior(s) or the U.P. Board of Regents, to the damage and prejudice of
the Government service.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Dr. Dayco and Dr. Posadas were duly arraigned on June 15, 2000 and May 28, 2001, respectively,
both pleading not guilty to the charges against them.20

Ruling of the Sandiganbayan

After due proceedings, the Sandiganbayan rendered its Decision21 dated June 28, 2005, the
decretal portion of which reads:

ACCORDINGLY, this Court finds both accused Roger R. Posadas and Rolando P. Dayco GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(e) of RA 3019 and Section 7(b) of RA 6713 and
are sentenced to suffer the following penalties:

For violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019: accused Posadas and Dayco are sentenced to suffer in
prison the indeterminate penalty of nine (9) years and one day as minimum and twelve (12) years
as maximum, with the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from public office. Both
accused are directed to jointly and severally indemnify the Government of the Republic of the
Philippines the amount of THREE HUNDRED THIRTY SIX THOUSAND PESOS (336,000.00).

For violation of Section 7(b) of RA 6713: accused Posadas and Dayco are sentenced to suffer in
prison the maximum penalty of five (5) years and disqualification to hold public office.

SO ORDERED.22
The Sandiganbayan held that the evidence supports a finding of evident bad faith on the part of
petitioners who, knowing very well the limitations of Dr. Daycos power as OIC, effected the
appointment of Dr. Posadas as TMC Project Director and Consultant. These limitations are

based on the nature of the power to appoint which is merely delegated to the Chancellor by the
BOR, Section 204 of the Government Accounting and Auditing Manual, and CSC MC No. 38, s.
1993 on non-retroactivity of appointments.

The Sandiganbayan concluded that petitioners acts caused undue injury to the Government with
the receipt by Dr. Posadas of salaries and consultancy fees. Petitioners contention that the
Government did not suffer loss or damage since the funding for the TMC Project came from CIDA
was rejected by the Sandiganbayan which stated that from the moment UP received the CIDA
funds intended for the TMC Project, said funds became "impressed with public attributes or
character," as in fact it was subjected to the control of UP and audited by the COA.

The Sandiganbayan likewise found no merit in petitioners claim that they were just victims of
"university politics"as they were staunch critics of President Javier. Petitioners adduced
documentary and testimonial evidence to show that Ms. Del Mundos filing of a complaint against
petitioners was triggered by the fact that it was Dr. Posadas who ordered an administrative
investigation against her and recalled her to the University Library, which incident led to the
resignation of Prof. Tabbada from TMC. However, the Sandiganbayan stressed that regardless of
the reason for the filing of the cases against petitioners at the university level, these cases would
not have come into being if no law has been violated in the first place.

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied due course for the reason that it has
not been set for hearing as required by the rules, hence the motion ispro forma.

In this petition for certiorari, petitioners allege grave abuse of discretion and blatant violation of
their constitutionally guaranteed right to due process.

The Issues

The Court is asked to resolve whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of or in excess of jurisdiction: (1) in denying petitioners motion for
reconsideration on the ground that it was not set for hearing; and (2) in convicting petitioners of
Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and Section 7(b) of R.A. No. 6713 on the basis of facts
not supported by evidence and on inapplicable rules and principles.

Petitioners Arguments

Petitioners argue that the July 19, 2005 Resolution denying their motion for reconsideration is not
only baseless, but capricious, arbitrary and most unjust because the Revised Internal Rules of the
Sandiganbayan does not require that the motion for reconsideration be set for hearing. They cite
the case of Alvarez v. Sandiganbayan23 where this Court ruled that motions for reconsideration of
decisions or final orders of the Sandiganbayan are not governed by Rule 15 of the Rules of Court,
as these may be filed within 15 days from promulgation or notice of the judgment or final order
"upon the grounds, in the form and subject to the requirements, for motions for new trial in criminal
cases under Rule 121 of the Rules of Court."

On the charges of graft, petitioners assert that they did not act with bad faith, manifest partiality or
gross inexcusable negligence. They reiterate that Dr. Daycos designation as OIC Chancellor was
adjusted for one day merely to accommodate the change in the official travel schedule of Dr.
Posadas to China. The appointment of Dr. Posadas as TMC Project Director and Consultant was a
valid appointment and was made retroactive for no other reason than to synchronize the activities
relative to the TMC Project with the project schedule as approved by the funding agency. The
power of appointment was within the power of the Chancellor to delegate to the OIC Chancellor, it
not being expressly prohibited by the University rules. Such practice, in fact, is not an unusual
occurrence in UP.

Petitioners also contend that no injury was caused to the government because the TMC Project
budget came from foreign funds, hence not an expense incurred by the Government and neither
did UP incur any expense in relation to the said project, its counterpart funding was not in the form
of money. Consequently, there can be no conviction under the law in the absence of real or actual
damage suffered.

On the "honoraria" and fees received by Dr. Posadas as Project Director and Consultant,
petitioners insist they cannot be held liable for double compensation because these were given for
separate services rendered by Dr. Posadas. As opined by the UP Chief Legal Officer, the
compensation were in the nature of consultancy fees being received by UP personnel in their
capacity as private persons for services to a project outside of their official time, hence it is not
covered by the DBM NCC No. 75. Moreover, petitioners stress that Dr. Posadas did not receive
any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference in his appointment as TMC Project Director and
Consultant. Dr. Posadas possesses the superior qualifications and expertise in the field of
technology management necessary to ensure that the project was a success. In fact, his
colleagues were expecting him to head the TMC Project and did not oppose his appointment.

As to the charge of unauthorized outside employment, petitioners point out that the University rules
do not require clearance from the UP President to engage in consultancy work and the same rules
do not prohibit him from performing consultancy work for a project such as TMC.

Therefore, Dr. Posadas appointment as TMC Project Director and Consultant were not prohibited
outside employment.

Petitioners reiterate their "university politics" defense, claiming that President Javier at the time
chose to champion Del Mundos complaint motivated by vengeance and spite against two of his
staunch critics. Thus, despite knowledge of the opinion of the UP Chief Legal Officer clearing
petitioners of any wrongdoing, President Javier underhandedly caused the filing of administrative
charges in the ADT.

Petitioners further submit that the complainant before the Ombudsman, Atty. Carmelita Yadao, was
incompetent as she had no personal knowledge of the contents thereof, which were merely
narrated or reported to her in her capacity as General Counsel of UP at that time. The letter-
complaint should not have been given due course as it was based on pure hearsay and its main
proponent suffered from conflicting interests because she had earlier endorsed the MOA which
included the compensation package for TMC Project Director and Consultant.

Finally, petitioners deny having acted in conspiracy as there was no evidence to prove it. The only
assumed fact considered by the Sandiganbayan is based on its erroneous hypothesis the
alleged act of "extending" the period of OIC Chancellor for one day to accommodate Dr. Posadas.
Dr. Dayco did not even gain anything from his designation of Dr. Posadas. Thus, in the absence of
clear and convincing proof, petitioners cannot be held liable as conspirators.

Our Ruling

The petition has no merit.

Notice of Hearing in Motions

For Reconsideration Is Mandatory

Contrary to petitioners stance, the 2002 Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan requires a
motion for reconsideration to be set for hearing, as it provides under Rule VII:
SECTION 1. Motion Day. - Except for motions which may be acted upon ex parte, all motions shall
be scheduled for hearings on a Friday, or if that day is a non-working holiday, on the next working
day.

Motions requiring immediate action may be acted upon on shorter notice.

In appealed cases, the provisions of Sec. 3, Rule 49 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as
amended, on Motions shall apply. (Emphasis supplied.)

Under the Rules of Sandiganbayan, effective January 10, 1979, a petition for reconsideration of a
judgment or final order may be filed upon the grounds, in the form and subject to the requirements,
for motions for new trial in criminal cases under Rule 121 of the Rules of Court.24 In the case of
Alvarezv. Sandiganbayan25 decided in 1991, the Court upheld the Sandiganbayan in not
considering "the failure of the movant to fix the place, date and time of the hearing of his motion a
substantial defect, for instead of giving the motion a short shrift, it set the incident for hearing, and
even granted the prosecution ten days from notice within which to oppose/comment." The Court
noted what was then the practice of the Sandigabayan itself, rather than the movant, to determine
the date and time of hearings of motions. The peculiar circumstances of said case heavily weighed
in favor of relaxation of the rules, with the Courts finding that the evidence presented against the
petitioner does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and may not be deemed sufficient to support a
conviction. Hence, the Court was not prepared "to declare that petitioners omission to set his
motion for hearing is so grievous an error as to foreclose the award to him of the relief to which he
is otherwise entitled."

In any event, the mandatory setting for hearing a motion for reconsideration to reverse or modify a
judgment or final order of the Sandiganbayan is already settled. This Court categorically ruled in
the recent case of Flores v. People26

Flores filed a motion for the reconsideration. As the motion did Not contain any notice of hearing,
the Prosecution filed its Motion to Expunge from the Records Accuseds Motion for
Reconsideration."

In its Resolution, dated November 29, 2007, the Sandiganbayan denied the motion for being a
mere scrap of paper as it did not contain a notice of hearing and disposed as follows:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Motion for Reconsideration of accused Flores is
considered pro forma which did not toll the running of the period to appeal, and thus, the assailed
judgment of this Court has become FINAL and EXECUTORY.

SO ORDERED.

xxxx

Flores claims that the outright denial of his motion for Reconsideration by the Sandiganbayan on a
mere technicality amounts to a violation of his right to due process. The dismissal rendered final
and executory the assailed decision which was replete with baseless conjectures and conclusions
that were contrary to the evidence on record. He points out that a relaxation of procedural rules is
justified by the merits of this case as the facts, viewed from the proper and objective perspective,
indubitably demonstrate self-defense on his part.

Flores argues that he fully complied with the requirements of Section2 of Rule 37 and Section 4 of
Rule 121 of the Rules of Court when the motion itself was served upon the prosecution and the
latter, in fact, admitted receiving a copy. For Flores, such judicial admission amounts to giving due
notice of the motion which is the intent behind the said rules. He further argues that a hearing on a
motion for reconsideration is not necessary as no further proceeding, such as a hearing, is
required under Section 3 of Rule 121.
Flores argument fails to persuade this Court.

Section 5, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court reads:

SECTION 5. Notice of hearing. The notice of hearing shall be addressed to all parties concerned,
and shall specify the time and date of the hearing which must not be later than ten (10) days after
the filing of the motion.

Section 2, Rule 37 provides:

SEC. 2. Contents of motion for new trial or reconsideration and notice thereof. The motion shall
be made in writing stating the ground or grounds therefore, a written notice of which shall be
served by the movant on the adverse party.

xxxx

A pro forma motion for new trial or reconsideration shall not toll the reglementary period of appeal.

Section 4, Rule 121 states:

SEC. 4. Form of motion and notice to the prosecutor. The motion for a new trial or
reconsideration shall be in writing and shall state the grounds on which it is based. x x x. Notice of
the motion for new trial or reconsideration shall be given to the prosecutor.

As correctly stated by the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), Sec.2 of Rule 37 and Sec. 4 of
Rule 121 should be read in conjunction with Sec.5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court. Basic is the
rule that every motion must be set for hearing by the movant except for those motions which the
court may act upon without prejudice to the rights of the adverse party. The notice of hearing must
be addressed to all parties and must specify the time and date of the hearing, with proof of service.

This Court has indeed held, time and again, that under Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of
Court, the requirement is mandatory. Failure to comply with the requirement renders the motion
defective. "As a rule, a motion without a notice of hearing is considered pro forma and does not
affect the reglementary period for the appeal or the filing of the requisite pleading."

In this case, as Flores committed a procedural lapse in failing to include a notice of hearing, his
motion was a worthless piece of paper with no legal effect whatsoever. Thus, his motion was
properly dismissed by the Sandiganbayan.27 (Emphasis supplied.)

We thus find no grave abuse of discretion committed by the Sandiganbayan when it denied due
course to petitioners motion for reconsideration on the ground that it "has not been set for hearing
as required by the rules" and the same is "deemed pro forma."

Violation of Section 3(e)of R.A. No. 3019

The essential elements of the crime defined in Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, otherwise known as
The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, are:

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. That his action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, or giving any
private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions.28

There is no question regarding the presence of the first requisite considering that at the time the
subject appointments were made, both petitioners were faculty members and holding
administrative positions in UP Diliman. What petitioners dispute is the existence of the second and
third requisites.

In Criminal Case No. 25465, the information charged that petitioners willfully, unlawfully and
criminally gave unwarranted benefits to Dr. Posadas in appointing him as TMC Project Director, in
violation of the prohibition against multiple positions and the rule on non-retroactivity of
appointments, thereby causing undue injury to the Government.

In Cabrera v. Sandiganbayan,29 this Court explained that there are two (2) ways by which a public
official violates Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 in the performance of his functions, namely: (a) by
causing undue injury to any party, including the Government; or (b) by giving any private party any
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference. The accused may be charged under either mode
or under both. Moreover, in Quibal v. Sandiganbayan,30 the Court held that the use of the
disjunctive term "or" connotes that either act qualifies as a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No.
3019.31 Here, petitioners were charged with committing the offense under both modes.

Upon the entire evidence on record, the Sandiganbayan was convinced that petitioners were guilty
of causing undue injury to the Government. In Llorente, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan,32 this Court said
that to hold a person liable for causing undue injury under Section 3(e), the concurrence of the
following elements must be established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution:

(1) that the accused is a public officer or a private person charged in conspiracy with the former;

(2) that said public officer commits the prohibited acts during the performance of his or her official
duties or in relation to his or her public positions;

(3) that he or she causes undue injury to any party, whether the government or a private party; and

(4) that the public officer has acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
negligence.

We sustain the decision of the Sandiganbayan holding petitioners liable for causing undue injury to
the Government in appointing Dr. Posadas as TMC Project Director with evident bad faith.

Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a dishonest purpose or
some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of sworn duty through some motive
or intent or ill will; it partakes of the nature of fraud.33 It contemplates a state of mind affirmatively
operating with furtive design or some motive of self interest or ill will for ulterior purposes.34
Evident bad faith connotes a manifest deliberate intent on the part of the accused to do wrong or
cause damage.35

In Pecho v. Sandiganbayan,36 the Court en banc defined injury as "any wrong or damage done to
another, either in his person, or in his rights, reputation or property; the invasion of any legally
protected interests of another." It must be more than necessary or are excessive, improper or
illegal. It is required that the undue injury caused by the positive or passive acts of the accused be
quantifiable and demonstrable and proven to the point of moral certainty.37 "Undue" means illegal,
immoral, unlawful, void of equity and moderations.38

In this case, that petitioners acted in evident bad faith was duly established by the evidence. We
recall that the MOA was executed on September 18, 1995 and became effective upon the
signature of the parties.39 Between that date and the China trip scheduled in the first week of
November (the invitation was dated July 30, 1995), Dr. Posadas could have already appointed the
Project Director and Consultant as indeed the retroactive appointment was even justified by them
because supposedly "project activities" have already started by September 18, 1995. And yet, he
waited until the China trip so that in his absence the designated OIC Chancellor, Dr. Dayco, would
be the one to issue the appointment. Apparently, Dr. Posadas appointment by Dr. Dayco in an
OIC capacity was pre-conceived. Prof. Jose Tabbada testified that when he was summoned by Dr.
Posadas to his office, the latter asked him how he (Posadas) could be appointed TMC Project
Director. He then suggested that Dr. Dayco as OIC Chancellor can appoint him to the position and
even drafted the memo for this purpose. He admitted that he gave such advice with some
reservations but it turned out to have been pursued by petitioners.40

However, the Sandiganbayan ruled that the delegated authority of the OIC Chancellor has
limitations and did not include the power to appoint.

Section 204 of the Government Accounting and Auditing Manual (Volume I on Government
Auditing Rules and Regulations) provides:

Sec. 204. Appointment issued by an officer-in-charge. -- A person designated in an acting capacity

may be differentiated from one who is designated merely as an Officer-in-Charge (OIC). In the
latter case, the OIC enjoys limited powers which, are confined to functions of administration and
ensuring that the office continues its usual activities. The OIC may not be deemed to possess the
power to appoint employees as the same involves the exercise of discretion which is beyond the
power of an OIC (CSC Res. 1692, Oct. 20, 1978).

To prove the alleged practice in the University of an OIC appointing a Chancellor to a certain
position, petitioners presented copies of temporary appointment papers issued by OIC Chancellor
Paz G. Ramos to former Chancellor Ernesto G. Tabujara who was appointed Consultant-In-Charge
of the Campus Planning, Development and Maintenance Office, UP Diliman with 2,000.00
monthly honorarium effective January 1, 1986 to December 31, 1986. It must be noted, however,
that the said appointment was made by the OIC "by authority of the Board of Regents" and these
were actually approved and signed by then Secretary of the University, Prof. Martin V. Gregorio,
while the renewal appointment was approved by Secretary of the University Prof. Emerlinda R.
Roman. Both Gregorio and Roman signed the Notification of Approval of Temporary
Appointment.41

Petitioners nonetheless argue that the appointments made by Dr. Dayco were valid on the basis of
Section 9(a) of the Resolution of the BOR reorganizing UP into the UP System adopted at its 828th
meeting on December 21, 1972, as amended at its 863rd meeting on July 31, 1975. Under said
resolution, the BOR authorized the Chancellor of an autonomous university of the UP System to
delegate his functions and responsibilities which have been assigned or delegated to him by the
BOR, unless instructed otherwise by the BOR. It also enumerated those functions that may not be
delegated, among which is:

B. Functions That May Not Be Delegated

xxxx

f. Authority to approve the following appointments

(1) those covered in II, C, 1, and e of the Presidents Memorandum Circular No. 30 dated August
28, 1975; and

(2) those covered in II, C, 4, a through c of the aforecited memorandum circular of the President;

x x x x42

MC No. 30 dated August 28, 1975 issued by former UP President Onofre D. Corpuz provided for
"Operating Guidelines on Appointments and Related Personnel Transactions in the University
System," which specifically delineated the authority to appoint of university officials.

The pertinent provisions of said MCNo. 30 read:

C. Delegated Authority of the Chancellor to Appoint

1. The Chancellor of an autonomous University approves appointments to the following positions:

a. directors or heads and assistant directors or assistant heads of units supervised by or attached
to principal units, except those whose starting salaries are equal to or higher than that of associate
professor;

b. program or project directors;

xxxx

5. The Chancellor approves the appointment of personnel, regardless of rank or salary range,
incidental to employment in research projects, study and training programs and other programs or
projects undertaken in collaboration with, or with the support of, public or private institutions or
persons.

TYPES OF APPOINTMENT/PERSONNEL ACTION COVERED:

Appointment as used in II, C, 5 above includes all types of appointment and personnel action
pertaining to appointment, except transfer to permanency of faculty members. (Emphasis
supplied.)

According to petitioners, since appointments falling under II, C, 5 was not specifically mentioned in
the enumeration of those functions of the Chancellor that may not be delegated, it follows that such
appointments may be validly delegated, as in this case, the appointments issued by OIC
Chancellor Dayco to Dr. Posadas as TMC Project Director and Consultant. Moreover, it is argued
that in the BOR Resolution itself, the designated OIC Chancellor was granted full powers:

E. Extent of Authority of One Appointed in an Acting/Officer-in-Charge Capacity

One appointed/designated, in an acting or officer-in-charge capacity, to the office of chancellor

shall discharge all the functions of the position unless instructed otherwise by the regular
incumbent, and in any case, subject to the latters instructions, to the policies of the Board of
Regents and to the provisions of D herein above and of F herein below; provided, that "all the
functions of the position" as used in and for purposes of this resolution shall be construed as
inclusive of all the functions assigned to the position by competent University authority and all such
functions as usually pertain, or are "inherent," to the position although not expressly assigned
thereto by competent University authority.

Petitioners argument fails to persuade.

It must be emphasized that the subject appointments involve not an ordinary personnel or faculty
member but the Chancellor himself who was also vested with administrative supervision over the
institution implementing the TMC Project, TMC. Note that while II, C, 5 in MC No. 30 speaks of
"personnel, regardless of rank or salary range, incidental to employment," the same could not
possibly refer to the Chancellor himself. This is evident from the exception provided in II, B, 1
where it is the President himself who approves the appointment, viz:

B. Delegated Authority of the President to Appoint

1. The President approves the appointment of officers and employees (including faculty members if
there are any) who are not included in or covered by the enumerations in II, A above and of those
who are covered in II, C, 5 below who are:

a. in or directly under the Office of the President; or

b. in University-wide units; or
c. in other offices or units, academic or non-academic, that are not part of any autonomous
University;

to the same extent and under the same conditions stipulated in II, C below for the delegated
authority of the Chancellor of an autonomous University to appoint.

TYPES OF APPOINTMENT/PERSONNELACTION COVERED:

Appointment as used in II, B, 1 above includes all types of appointment and personnel action
pertaining to appointment, except transfer to permanency of faculty members. (Emphasis
supplied.)

Considering that it is the Chancellor himself who is being appointed to a project covered in II, C, 5,
the BOR resolution on the authority of the Chancellor to delegate his functions may not be invoked
because the situation is covered by II, B, 1, the Chancellor being directly under the administrative
supervision of the UP President as the Chief Executive Officer of the University. The Chancellor,
on the other hand, is the executive officer and the head of the faculty of the Constituent University,
who likewise performs other functions that the BOR or the President may delegate to her/him. This
is clearly indicated in the organizational structure of the UP Diliman, sourced from the Faculty
Manual of the University of the Philippines Diliman43:

Thus, even granting that the subject appointments in UP Diliman, an autonomous educational
institution, are not covered by Section 204 of the Government Accounting and Auditing Manual,
they are still invalid and illegal, because the delegated authority to appoint in this case, involving as
it does the Chancellor himself, pertains to the President of the University. Indeed, the Chancellor
cannot exercise the delegated authority to appoint in the situations covered by II, C, 5 when he
himself is the appointee. The designated OIC likewise had no authority to make the appointment.

As to the prohibition on government officials and employees, whether elected or appointed, from
holding any other office or position in the government, this is contained in Section 7, Article IX-B of
the 1987 Constitution, which provides:

xxxx

Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position, no appointive official
shall hold any other office or employment in the Government, or any subdivision, agency or
instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their
subsidiaries. (Emphasis supplied.)

The prohibition on dual employment and double compensation in the government service is further
specified under Sections 1 and 2, Rule XVIII of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of E.O.
No. 292,44 as follows:

Sec. 1. No appointive official shall hold any other office or employment in the Government or any
subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled
corporations with original charters or their subsidiaries, unless otherwise allowed by law or by the
primary functions of his position.

Sec. 2. No elective or appointive public officer or employee shall receive additional, double, or
indirect compensation, unless specifically authorized by law, xxx.

Under Section 2(d), Rule III of the Revised Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Other Personnel
Actions,45 appointments of personnel under Foreign-assisted projects shall be issued and
approved as coterminous with the project. The MOA itself provides that the "services of the
contractual personnel of the University for the Project shall be discontinued upon its completion or
termination." The appointment of Dr. Posadas as TMC Project Director falls within the prohibition
against holding of multiple positions since there is no distinction in Section 7, Article IX-B as to the
employment status, i.e., whether permanent, temporary or coterminous. Petitioners failed to cite
any law to justify Dr. Posadas holding of concurrent positions as Chancellor and TMC Project
Director.

Another legal infirmity in the appointment of Dr. Posadas as TMC Project Director is the fact that it
was made retroactive, in violation of CSC MC No. 38, Series of 1993, the Omnibus Guidelines on
Appointments and Other Personnel Actions. Section II, 5 B (7) thereof reads:

7. Effectivity of Appointment

a. The effectivity of an appointment shall be the date of actual assumption by the appointee but not
earlier than the date of issuance of the appointment, which is the date of signing by the appointing
authority.

b. No appointment shall be made effective earlier than the date of issuance, except in the case of
change of status in view of qualifying in written examination, the effectivity of which is the date of
release of the result of the examination. However, the issuance of such appointments shall be
within the period of the temporary appointment or provided the temporary appointment has not yet
expired.

xxxx

Petitioners assert that appointment as TMC Project Director is not covered by the above rule
because it is in the nature of consultancy which is no longer required to be submitted to the CSC.

A perusal of the duties and responsibilities of the TMC Project Director reveals that the latter is
tasked to perform the following:

Provide overall direction to the Project;

Exercise supervision over Project personnel, including the visiting experts;

Approve the recruitment of personnel, disbursement of Project funds, and changes in the Project
activities and schedule;

Coordinate with other persons, agencies and institutions involved in technology management;

Perform such other functions as may be necessary to ensure the efficient, orderly and effective
management and timely completion of the Project.46

The foregoing duties and responsibilities are not susceptible of partial performance or division into
parts as would justify its classification into lump sum work. Neither are these advisory in nature as
would make it fall under the scope of a consultancy service.47 The status of Dr. Posadas
employment as TMC Project Director is a coterminous one. Under civil service rules, appointments
of personnel under foreign-assisted projects shall be issued and approved as coterminous with the
project,48 that is, they are considered employees for the duration of the project, in which case, the
name of the project and its completion date shall be indicated in the appointment.49 This status of
employment is to be distinguished from contract of services which covers lump sum work or
services such as janitorial, security or consultancy services, whose appointments need not be
submitted to the CSC for approval.

We also find no merit in petitioners argument that the element of injury caused to the Government
is lacking since the budget for TMC Project came from a foreign source and hence no public funds
are involved. Under the MOA, UP shall be "principally accountable for the project funds" which
shall be released to and properly managed by it to ensure the attainment of the Projects
objectives. Clearly, these funds are in the nature of "trust fund" which is defined by Presidential
Decree No. 1445 as "fund that officially comes in the possession of an agency of the government
or of a public officer as trustee, agent or administrator, or that is received for the fulfillment of some
obligation.50 A trust fund may be utilized only for the "specific purpose for which the trust was
created or the funds received."51 The Sandiganbayan thus correctly held that the funds received
for the TMC Project were impressed with public attributes or character from the time it came into
UPs possession.

The disbursement and payment of the 30,000.00 monthly salary as TMC Project Director to Dr.
Posadas was improper, in view of his invalid appointment. Said amount represents the actual injury
to the Government. The third requisite of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, therefore, was sufficiently
established by the prosecution.

Violation of Section 7(b),R.A. No. 6713

In Criminal Case No. 25466, the charge involves the private practice of profession prohibited under
Section 7(b) of R.A. No. 6713, otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
Public Officials and Employees, by appointing Dr. Posadas as Consultant of the TMC Project. Said
provision reads:

SEC. 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. In addition to acts and omissions of public officials
and employees now prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the following shall constitute
prohibited acts and transactions of any public official and employee and are hereby declared to be
unlawful:

xxxx

(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto. Public officials and employees
during their incumbency shall not:

xxxx

(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law,
provided that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions; or

xxxx

Pursuant to CSC Resolution No. 93-1881 dated May 25, 1993, a contract for consultancy services
is not covered by Civil Service Law, rules and regulations because the said position is not found in
the index of position titles approved by DBM. Accordingly, it does not need the approval of the
CSC.52 CSC MC No. 38, series of 1993 expressly provides that consultancy services are not
considered government service for retirement purposes. A "consultant" is defined as one who
provides professional advice on matters within the field of his special knowledge or training. There
is no employer-employee relationship in the engagement of a consultant but that of client-
professional relationship.53

Consultancy is deemed private practice of profession. Under CSC Resolution 02126454 dated
September 27, 2002, accepting a consultancy job under a part-time status is subject to the
following conditions:

1. It must not violate the rule against holding multiple positions

2. The employee/officer must obtain permission or authority from his/her head of agency as the
same constitutes private practice of profession;

3. The consultancy job must not conflict or tend to conflict with his/her official functions; and
4. It must not affect the effective performance of his/her duty.

In convicting petitioners, the Sandiganbayan cited Article 250 of the University Code, which
provides:

Art. 250. No member of the academic staff, officer or employee of the University shall, without
permission from the President or the Chancellor, as the case may be, practice any profession or
manage personally any private enterprise which in any way may be affected by the functions of his
office, nor shall he be directly financially interested in any contract with the University unless
permitted by the Board. Violation of this provision shall be punishable by reprimand, suspension, or
dismissal from the service. (Emphasis supplied.)

Since Dr. Posadas and Dr. Dayco entered into the contract for consultancy services for the TMC
Project without prior permission from the University President, the Sandiganbayan ruled that they
violated Section 7(b) of R.A. No. 6713.

Petitioners contend that the section of the University Code cited by the Sandiganbayan had
already been superseded by the guidelines on outside activities promulgated by the BOR at its
1031st Meeting on June 28, 1990. Thus, in the Faculty Manual of the University of the Philippines
Diliman while the consultancy at TMC Project falls under the coverage of "outside activities," prior
authorization by the University President is no longer required. The pertinent provisions of the
manual read:

10.3 Guidelines on Outside Activities [1031st BOR meeting, June 28, 1990]

10.3.1 Coverage

Outside activities of University personnel shall include: limited practice of profession, management
of private enterprises, outside consultancy, secondment, teaching in other educational or training
institutions with which the University has a Memorandum of Agreement, as well as research and
other activities or projects under the auspices of outside agencies which are not considered
integral functions of the University. Such activities shall not be considered part of the regular
workload of the personnel concerned.

10.3.2 Prior Authorization

No member of the University personnel shall engage in outside activities without prior authorization
from the Chancellor, upon endorsement by the Dean, Director, or head of office concerned, subject
to the exigencies of the service.

xxxx

10.3.5 Penalties

Violation of any of the rules on outside activities shall be ground for disciplinary action. The
immediate superior of the faculty/staff member shall immediately submit a report on any violation of
the rules to the Office of the Chancellor, through channels.

Disciplinary action on any faculty/staff member may be imposed, but only in accordance with the
law, and after due process.

10.3.6 Types

xxxx

c. Limited/private practice of profession

Permission to engage in private practice of the profession of faculty members may be granted only
if such private practice may enhance their usefulness to the University or improve their efficiency.
[Art. 252]

The privilege of private practice, when granted, shall be for a definite period of one (1) year,
renewable at the discretion of the Chancellor for one-year periods, and under such conditions as
may be prescribed by him/her regarding the nature of the work, the time of performance, and other
circumstances. [Art. 253; amended at BOR meetings: 839th , Nov. 29, 1973; 1031st, June 28,
1990]

The limited practice of ones profession shall be governed by the following guidelines:

1) No member of the academic staff, officer or employee of the University shall, without prior
permission from the Chancellor, practice any profession or manage personally any private
enterprise which in any way may be affected by the functions of her/his office; nor shall s/he be
directly financially interested in any contract with the University unless permitted by the Board.

Violation of this provision shall be punishable by reprimand, suspension, or dismissal from the
service. [Art. 250; amended at 1031st BOR meeting, June 28, 1990]

2) Permission to engage in private practice of profession may granted provided that such practice:

is NOT ADVERSE to the interests of the University;

shall NOT be conducted on official time;

will improve the persons efficiency and usefulness to the University; and

shall be subject to such other requirements as may be imposed by law or University rules and
regulations. (Emphasis supplied.)

Notwithstanding the supposed amendment of the rule on limited practice of profession as

contained in Article 250 of the University Code, we sustain the Sandiganbayan in holding that
petitioners should have obtained prior permission from the University President for the contract for
consultancy services in the TMC Project. As with our conclusion on the issue of authority to
appoint the TMC Project Director, considering that it is the Chancellor himself who was engaged as
TMC Project Consultant, the contract for consultancy services of Dr. Posadas should have been
authorized by the University President as the chief executive officer of the UP System. To hold
otherwise is to leave the matter of determining the criteria or conditions for allowing the private
practice of profession provided in the University rules entirely to Dr. Posadas himself as then UP
Diliman Chancellor. Consistent with the Civil Service rules that prior authorization by the head of
the agency or institution must be sought by the government officer or employee who desires to
accept a consultancy job, it is no less than the University President who should have given
permission to Dr. Posadas, the latter being directly under his administrative supervision.

Upon the established facts and applicable law and jurisprudence, we hold that no grave abuse of
discretion was committed by the Sandiganbayan in convicting petitioners for violation of Section
7(b) of R.A. No. 6713.

Conspiracy

A conspiracy is proved by evidence of actual cooperation; of acts indicative of an agreement, a

common purpose or design, a concerted action or concurrence of sentiments to commit the felony
and actually pursue it.55 For the accused to be held as conspirators, it is not necessary to show
that two or more persons met together and entered into an explicit agreement setting out the
details of an unlawful scheme or the details by which an illegal objective is to be carried out."
Therefore, if it is proved that two or more persons aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment
of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their acts, though apparently independent,
were in fact connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a
concurrence of sentiment, then a conspiracy may be inferred though no actual meeting among
them to concert means is proved.56

The Sandiganbayans finding of conspiracy rests on firm factual support. Although Dr. Dayco tried
to downplay his participation, stating that he did not benefit from the subject appointments and that
there were many other appointment papers he had signed in the absence of Dr. Posadas, it is
clear as daylight that he had a principal and indispensable role in effecting the said appointments.
To stress the point, the Sandiganbayan quoted the relevant portions of the Report submitted by the
ADT, as follows:

It would be the height of naivet to assume that before making the two (2) appointments of
respondent Posadas as Director of the TMC Project and as Consultant to the TMC, respondent
Dayco did not, in any manner, confer with respondent Posadas about the matter. To believe the
claim of respondent Posadas that he just saw his appointment papers at his desk when he came
back from his trip is to tax human credulity too much.

Under the said circumstances, the natural course of events necessarily points to connivance
between respondent Posadas and respondent Dayco in the making of the questioned
appointments.

Despite the claim of respondent Posadas that he just saw the appointment papers on his desk
when he returned from his trip, the admitted fact is that respondent Dayco made those
appointments for respondent Posadas and the latter acted upon the same favourably as he
(respondent Posadas) collected the compensation therein (Exhibits :E" and "E-1"). In fact, as
Chancellor, respondent Posadas approved his own Disbursement Voucher for payment from the
coffers of the University, covering his honoraria and consultancy fees as Project Director for the
TMC Project and as consultant to the TMC, respectively (Exhibit "E-2").57

Penalty

Any person guilty of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 is punishable with imprisonment for not
less than six (6) years and one (1) month nor more than fifteen (15) years and perpetual
disqualification from public office.58 Thus, the penalty imposed by the Sandiganbayan which is an
indeterminate penalty of nine (9) years and one day as minimum and twelve (12) years as
maximum, with the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from public office, is in accord
with law. Petitioners shall also indemnify the Government of the Republic of the Philippines the
amount of THREE HUNDRED THIRTY SIX THOUSAND PESOS (336,000.00) representing the
compensation/salaries paid to Dr. Posadas as TMC Project Director.

As to the offense defined in Section 7(b) of R.A. No. 6713, Section 11 of said law provides that
violations of Section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment not exceeding five (5) years, or a fine
not exceeding five thousand pesos (5,000), or both, and, in the discretion of the court,
disqualification to hold public office. The Sandiganbayan imposed the maximum penalty of five (5)
years imprisonment and disqualification to hold public office.

The Court is aware of the sentiments of the succeeding BOR who agonized while deliberating
whether to readmit petitioners into the faculty of UP Diliman, with majority of the Regents lamenting
the loss of two of its distinguished intellectuals and scientists who had served the University for so
long despite the meager compensation UP has to offer compared to private educational
institutions.59 The BOR eventually allowed them to teach part-time in the TMC even waiving the
conditions the previous BOR had imposed -- a move perceived to be a first step in the healing
process for the academic community that was "torn into pieces" by the issue.
However, this Court's mandate is to uphold the Constitution and the laws. Our Constitution
stresses that a public office is a public trust and public officers must at all times be accountable to
the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with
patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.60 These constitutionally enshrined principles, oft-
repeated in our case law, are not mere rhetorical flourishes or idealistic sentiments. They should
be taken as working standards by all in the public service.61

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The Decision dated June 28, 2005 of the
Sandiganbayan in Criminal Cases Nos. 25465-66 is hereby AFFIRMED and UPHELD.

With costs against the petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.

Associate Justice