Useless gesture

One of the corrupt practices for which a public officer may be held liable under the Anti-Graft Law (R.A. 3019), Section 3 [e]), is causing "any undue injury" to any party in the discharge of his official administrative function through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. If an official is charged for violation of this section due to his unlawful and unceremonious dismissal of an employee, will his act of reinstating the employee to her former position and paying her monetary claims obliterate the effects of the crime he has already committed? This is the question answered in this case of Monte.

Right after he assumed office as the newly elected Mayor of their town, Monte terminated the services of Anita who was appointed by the former Mayor as Budgeting Aide of the Municipal Budgeting Office. Anita appealed her termination to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) which found that she was unceremoniously terminated and ordered her reinstatement. But instead of reinstating Anita, Monte still made a series of moves foiling Anita’s return to her position until the case reached the Court of Appeals (CA) over a year later. When the CA still affirmed the CSC resolution ordering Anita’s reinstatement, Monte still refused to reinstate Anita despite her expressed desire to return to work. Monte informed Anita that he was still filing another petition with the CSC to recall her appointment. Deprived of her means of livelihood for over a year as she had not yet received her back salaries and other benefits, Anita filed a complaint with the Ombudsman charging Monte with violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. 3019 for causing her undue injury in the discharge of his function through manifest partiality and evident bad faith. After preliminary investigation, the Ombudsman found probable cause to warrant Monte’s indictment before the Sandiganbayan (SBN) for said violation.

After posting a bond for his provisional liberty, Monte reinstated Anita and paid all her monetary claims, in a complete turnaround and in the guise of being magnanimous in the spirit of Christmas. Then he asked the SBN for a reinvestigation of his case on the ground that since Anita was already reinstated and all her monetary claims were paid, it could no longer be alleged that she suffered undue injury which is one of the essential elements of the crime. Besides, Monte said that he acted in good faith when he terminated Anita’s employment. But the SBN denied his motion. The SBN said that Monte’s allegations are matters of defense which must be properly ventilated in a full blown trial because his act of reinstating Anita and paying her claims cannot obliterate the effects of the crime which was already committed by Monte. He should show among others that Anita did not suffer undue injury. Was the SBN correct?

Yes.

Even if Monte had already reinstated Anita to her former position without loss of seniority rights and paid all her monetary claims, there are still factual and profound legal issues that have to be resolved by the SBN, namely: (a) whether Anita suffered undue injury because of Monte’s obstinate refusal to reinstate her before he was charged with violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019; (b) whether Monte acted in good faith in terminating the employment of Anita; and (c) whether the post facto reinstatement of Anita and the payment of her monetary claims extinguished Monte’s criminal liability. These issues will have to be resolved, not necessarily in a full blown trial, since from the pleadings of the parties, the evidence are principally documentary. So even at the pre-trial stage, the issues can be narrowed down and well defined for the SBN to be able to resolve the case without going to trial (Diamante III vs. People etc. G.R. No. 148602 August 12, 2004),

E-mail at: [email protected]