Breach of Public Trust: Dual Roles, OIC Appointments, and Ethical Violations in UP Diliman

The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of two high-ranking University of the Philippines (UP) officials for violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. The case arose from the appointment of a sitting UP Diliman Chancellor to the paid positions of Project Director and Consultant of a technology management project, which the Court found to be a clear breach of public trust.

The Facts of the Case

Dr. Roger Posadas was the Chancellor of UP Diliman from November 1993 to October 1996. In 1995, UP established the Technology Management Center (TMC) under the Office of the Chancellor. A project called the TMC Project, funded by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), was approved, with UP providing counterpart funding.

In October 1995, Dr. Posadas was scheduled to travel to China. Before leaving, he designated Dr. Rolando Dayco, the Vice-Chancellor for Administrative Affairs, as Officer-In-Charge (OIC) of UP Diliman. While Dr. Posadas was away, Dr. Dayco appointed him as Project Director and Consultant of the TMC Project, with a monthly honorarium of P30,000 and consultancy fees totaling P100,000.

The Commission on Audit later questioned the payments, noting that the honoraria exceeded prescribed rates, that an OIC cannot validly designate the Chancellor to such positions, and that receiving compensation for multiple positions amounted to double compensation. An administrative investigation led to the dismissal of both officials, and criminal charges were subsequently filed before the Sandiganbayan.

The Charges and Conviction

The Sandiganbayan found both officials guilty of:

1. Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 – giving unwarranted benefits to Dr. Posadas by appointing him as TMC Project Director, causing undue injury to the Government.

2. Violation of Section 7(b) of R.A. No. 6713 – engaging in unauthorized private practice by appointing Dr. Posadas as a consultant.

The Sandiganbayan ruled that the officials acted with evident bad faith, knowing the limitations of an OIC's power to appoint. The Court also noted that the appointment was deliberately made retroactive and timed while the Chancellor was abroad, so that the OIC would issue the appointment.

The Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. On the procedural issue, the Court held that a motion for reconsideration before the Sandiganbayan must be set for hearing as required by the rules. A motion without a notice of hearing is considered a "mere scrap of paper" and does not toll the period to appeal.

On the substantive charges, the Court ruled that the OIC's power is limited to administrative functions and ensuring the continuity of office operations. An OIC does not possess the power to appoint, as this involves the exercise of discretion beyond an OIC's authority.

The Court also rejected the argument that the government suffered no injury because the project was funded by foreign aid. Once UP received the CIDA funds, these became public funds subject to government control and audit.

Key Legal Principles Established

The case clarifies several important rules:

• OICs have limited powers. They cannot make appointments or exercise discretionary functions of the regular incumbent.
• Evident bad faith is shown by a manifest deliberate intent to do wrong or cause damage, not mere bad judgment.
• Undue injury includes any wrong or damage done to another, and must be quantifiable and demonstrable.
• Foreign-funded projects are still subject to government auditing rules once funds are received by a government agency.
• Motions for reconsideration before the Sandiganbayan must strictly comply with the notice of hearing requirement.

Practical Takeaways

• Public officials must be cautious when designating OICs and ensure that any delegated authority is clearly defined and limited.
• Appointments made by an OIC, especially those involving the regular incumbent, are highly suspect and likely invalid.
• Receiving compensation for multiple positions in government requires clear legal authority; otherwise, it may constitute double compensation.
• Even project-based or foreign-funded activities are subject to government auditing rules and anti-graft laws.
• Procedural rules, such as the requirement to set motions for hearing, must be strictly followed to avoid losing the right to appeal.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.