OATH OF OFFICE
d. An oath of office is a qualifying requirement for a public
office, a prerequisite to the full investiture with the office. It is
only when the public officer has satisfied the prerequisite of
oath that his right to enter into the position becomes plenary
and complete. The pendency of an election protest is not
sufficient basis to enjoin him from assuming office or from
discharging his functions (Mendoza vs. Laxina, Sr., 406 SCRA
156).
Mendoza vs. Laxina, Sr
Is the taking of an oath of office anew by a duly proclaimed but
subsequently unseated local elective official a condition sine qua
non to the validity of his re-assumption in office where the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) orders the relinquishment of
the contested position?
On May 27, 1997, respondent took his oath and thereafter assumed
office as the duly proclaimed and elected barangay captain of
Barangay Batasan Hills, Quezon City, in the 1997 Barangay Elections.
Meanwhile, Roque Fermo, his rival candidate, filed an election
protest. On January 18, 1999, Fermo was declared as the winner in
the Barangay Elections. Respondent filed a notice of appeal with the
COMELEC while Fermo filed a motion for execution pending appeal.
On January 20, 1999, an order was issued by the trial court granting
the motion for execution pending appeal. Hence, respondent
vacated the position and relinquished the same to Fermo.
Thereafter, respondent filed a petition with the COMELEC
questioning the January 20, 1999 order of the trial court. On
September 16, 1999, the COMELEC issued a resolution[2] annulling
the order which granted the execution of the decision pending
appeal on the ground that there existed no good reasons to justify
execution.
COMELEC issued a writ of execution directing Fermo to vacate the
office of Barangay Chairman of Barangay Batasan Hills. He also
refused to vacate the premises.
This did not, however, prevent respondent and his staff from
discharging their functions and from holding office at the SK-Hall of
Batasan Hills.[5] On the same date, respondent appointed
Godofredo L. Ramos as Barangay Secretary[6] and on November 8,
1999, he appointed Rodel G. Liquido as Barangay Treasurer.[
Finally, on November 16, 1999, respondent took his oath of office as
Barangay Captain of Batasan Hills, Quezon City. Roque Fermo turned
over to respondent all the assets and properties of the barangay.
WON: Is oath of office a condition sine qua non to the validity of his
re-assumption in office?
RULING:
To be sure, an oath of office is a qualifying requirement for a public
office; a prerequisite to the full investiture with the office. It is only
when the public officer has satisfied the prerequisite of oath that his
right to enter into the position becomes plenary and complete.[33]
However, once proclaimed and duly sworn in office, a public officer
is entitled to assume office and to exercise the functions thereof.
The pendency of an election protest is not sufficient basis to enjoin
him from assuming office or from discharging his functions.[34]
Unless his election is annulled by a final and executory decision,[35]
or a valid execution of an order unseating him pending appeal is
issued, he has the lawful right to assume and perform the duties of
the office to which he has been elected.
In the case at bar, respondent was proclaimed as the winner in the
1997 Barangay Elections in Batasan Hills, Quezon City;
1. he took his oath on May 27, 1997 and thereafter assumed
office.
He is therefore vested with all the rights to discharge the
functions of his office. Although in the interim, he was
unseated by virtue of a decision in an election protest
decided against him, the execution of said decision was
annulled by the COMELEC in its September 16, 1999
Resolution which, incidentally, was sustained by this Court
on March 13, 2000, in Fermo v. Commission on
Elections.[36]
It was held therein that [w]hen the COMELEC nullified the
writ of execution pending appeal in favor of FERMO, the
decision of the MTC proclaiming FERMO as the winner of
the election was stayed and the status quo or the last
actual peaceful uncontested situation preceding the
controversy was restored[37]
The status quo referred to the stage when respondent was
occupying the office of Barangay Captain and discharging
its functions. For purposes of determining the continuity
and effectivity of the rights arising from respondents
proclamation and oath taken on May 27, 1997, it is as if
the said writ of execution pending appeal was not issued
and he was not ousted from office.
The re-taking of his oath of office on November 16, 1999
was a mere formality considering that his oath taken on
May 27, 1997 operated as a full investiture on him of the
rights of the office. Hence, the taking anew of his oath of
office as Barangay Captain of Batasan Hills, Quezon City
was not a condition sine qua non to the validity of his re-
assumption in office and to the exercise of the functions
thereof.
when is respondent considered to have validly re-assumed office
from October 28, 1999, the date of service of the writ of execution
to Roque Fermo and the date respondent actually commenced to
discharge the functions of the office, or from November 17, 1999,
the date Roque Fermo turned over to respondent the assets and
properties of Barangay Batasan Hills, Quezon City?
It is worthy to note that although the physical possession of the
Office of the Barangay Captain was not immediately relinquished by
Fermo to respondent, the latter exercised the powers and functions
thereof at the SK-Hall of Batasan Hills, Quezon City starting October
28, 1999. His re-assumption in office effectively enforced the
decision of the COMELEC which reinstated him in office. It follows
that all lawful acts of the latter arising from his re-assumption in
office on October 28, 1999 are valid. Hence, no grave misconduct
was committed by him in appointing Godofredo L. Ramos and Rodel
G. Liquido as Barangay Secretary and Barangay Treasurer,
respectively, and in granting them emoluments and renumerations
for the period served.
\
SB San Andres vs CA
Antonio, priate respondent, was elected barangay captain of Sapang
Palay Catanduanes on March 1989. He was later elected president of
the Association of Barangay Council(ABC) for the Municiplity of San
Andres Catanduanes. Pursuant to the Local Government Code of
1983, he was appointed by the President as Member of the
Sanguniang Bayan of the sid municipality. Meanwhile, DILG Sec.
declared the election for the president of the Federation of the
Association of Barangay Council(FABC) void for lack of quorum. As a
result, the provincial council was reorganized. DILG Sec then
designated private respondent as a temporary member of the
Sanguniang Panlalawigan of Catanduanes effective on 15 June 1990.
Because of his designation, private respondent tendered his
resignation as a member of the Sanguniang Bayan dated 14 June
1990 to the Mayor of San Andres Catanduanes. Copies of his letters
were also forwarded to the provincial governor, DILG and the
municipal treasurer. Subsequently, Aquino then the Vice President
of ABC was appointed by the provincial governor as member of the
Sanguniang Bayan in place of private respondent. Aquino assumed
office on 18 July 1980 after taking his oath. Subsequently, the ruling
of the DILG annulling the election of the FABC president was
reversed by the Supreme Court and declared the appointment of
private respondent void for lacking the essential qualification of
being the president of FABC. On 31 March 1992, private respondent
wrote to the Sanguniang Bayan(SB) of San Andres regarding his re-
assumption of his original position. SB refused.
ISSUE
1. Whether Antonios resignation was complete. 2. W/N respondent
abandoned his membership in the SB.
HELD
The resignation was not complete for lack of acceptance thereof of
the proper authority however, an office may still be deemed
relinquished through voluntary abandonment which needs no
acceptance. In Ortiz vs Comelec, resignation is defined as the act of
giving up of an ifficer by which he declines his office andrenounces
the further right to use it. It can be express or implied.
To constitute a complete and operative resignation the folloving
must be present. (1) an intention to relinquish a part of the term; (b)
an act of relinquishment; and (c) an acceptance by the proper
authority. In the case at bar, there was no evidence that the private
respondents resignation was accepted by the proper authority.
Although the Local Government Code of 1983 was silent as to who
specifically should accept the resignation it provides that the
position shall be deemed vacated only upon acceptance of
resignation and should be acted upon by the Sangunian concerned.
The resignation letter was tendered to the mayor and copies were
sent to the governor, DILG and the municipal treasurer but none of
them expressly acted on it. Furthermore, under established
jurisprudence, resignations, in the absence of statutory provisions as
to whom it should be submitted, should be submitted to the
appointing power. Therefore, the resignation should have been
submitted to the president or to the DILG as the presidents alter
ego.
Tackling the second issue, abandonment has been defined as the
voluntary relinquishment of an office by the holder, with the
intention of terminating his possession and contro thereof. It is a
species of resignation. While resignation is the formal
relinquishment, abandonment is the voluntary relinquishment by
non-user.
There are 2 essential elements of abandonment :
(1) an intention to abandon and
(2) an overt act by which intention is carried on. In the case at bar,
the first element was manifested on the following instances:
(1) private respondents failure to perform his function as SB;
(2) his failure to collect the corresponding renumeration for the
position,
(3)his failure to object to the appointment of Aquino as his
replacement to SB and
(4) his prolonged failure to initiate any act to reassume his post in
the SB after SC had nullified his designation as member of
Sanguniang Panlalawigan.
The second element was demonstrated by the following:
(1) his letter of resignation,
(2) his assumption of office as member of the Sanguniang
Panlalawigan,
(3) his faithful discharge of his duties and functions of SP and
(4) his recept of renumeration for such post.
The intention to abandon his position is shown by Antonios failure
to perform his function as member of the Sangguniang Bayan (SB),
his failure to collect the salary for the position, his failure to object
to the appointment of Aquino as his replacement and his prolonged
failure to initiate any act to reassume his post in the SB after the
reorganization of the SangguniangPanlalawigan (SP) of Catanduanes
and his designation as member of the SP were voided by the
Supreme Court (SB of San Andres vs. CA, 284 SCRA 276, 2000 BQ).
Ombudsman vs Jurado
Public office is public trust. When a public officer takes his oath of
office, he binds himself to perform the duties of his office faithfully
and to use reasonable skill and diligence, and to act primarily for the
benefit of the public. In failing to measure up to this standard,
respondent should be held administratively liable for neglect of duty
(Ombudsman vs. Jurado, 561 SCRA 137).
Although as a general rule, superior officers cannot be held liable for
the acts of their subordinates, there are exceptions: (1) where, being
charged with the duty of employing or retaining his subordinates,
he negligently or willfully employs or retains unfit or improper
persons; or (2) where, being charged with the duty to see that they
are appointed or qualified in a proper manner, he negligently or
willfully fails to require them the due conformity to the prescribed
regulations; or (3) where he so carelessly or negligently oversees,
conducts or carries on the business of his office as to furnish the
opportunity for the default; or (4) and a fortiori where he has
directed, authorized or cooperated in the wrong (Ombudsman vs.
Jurado, 561 SCRA 138).
FACTS:
It bears stressing that public office is a public trust.38 When a public
officer takes his oath of office, he binds himself to perform the
duties of his office faithfully and to use reasonable skill and
diligence, and to act primarily for the benefit of the public. Thus, in
the discharge of his duties, he is to use that prudence, caution and
attention which careful men use in the management of their
affairs.39 Public officials and employees are therefore expected to
act with utmost diligence and care in discharging the duties and
functions of their office. Unfortunately, respondent failed to
measure up to this standard. Clearly, respondent should be held
administratively liable for neglect of duty.
On March 16, 1992, respondent Jurado, who was then the Chief of
the Warehouse Inspection Division, adopted the recommendation of
Baliwag. Then he indorsed the papers of Maglei to the Chief of the
Miscellaneous Manufacturing Bonded Warehouse Division
(MMBWD).
Magleis application was submitted to Rolando A. Mendoza, Chief of
the MMBWD where Mendoza reported that Maglei has
substantially complied with the physical and documentary
requirements relative to their application for the operation of a
Customs Bonded Warehouse. Mendoza further recommended that
Magleis application be approved.
On June 25, 1992, Maglei was finally granted the authority to
establish and operate.
Subsequently, on July 8 and 22, 1992, MMBWD Senior Storekeeper
Account Officer George O. Dizon reported that the subject CBW was
existing and operating.
However, upon further verification by the Bureau of Customs, it was
discovered that the purported CBW of Maglei did not exist at the
alleged site in Caloocan City. Rather, what was reported located at
the site was a School of the Divine Mercy. Only a small signboard
bearing the name "Maglei Enterprises Company" was posted
inconspicuously in the corner of the lot.
Further investigation revealed that Magleis shipment of textile
materials disappeared, without proof of the materials being
exported or the corresponding taxes being paid.
Bureau of Customs initiated a complaint against George P. Dizon,
Rose Cuyos and John Elvin C. Medina for prosecution under the
Tariff and Customs Code Ombudsman finding respondent
administratively liable, penalizing him with suspension for six (6)
months without pay.
CA reversed.
ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT WAS NEGLIGENT IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTY, AS THE CHIEF OF THE WAREHOUSING
INSPECTION DIVISION?
RULING: YES. HE is negligent.
On the basis of the foregoing undisputed facts, it is apparent that
the immediate cause of the injury complained of was occasioned not
only by the failure of the CBW Inspectors to conduct an ocular
inspection of the premises in a manner and in accordance with the
existing Customs rules and regulations as well as the failure of their
immediate supervisors to verify the accuracy of the reports, but also
by subverting the reports by making misrepresentation as to the
existence of the warehouse.
As adverted to earlier, the Warehousing Inspection Division is the
inspection and audit arm of the Bureau of Customs. Respondent
Jurado, as chief of the said division, was duty-bound to verify the
accuracy of the reports furnished by his subordinates. We agree
with the Ombudsman that respondent failed to validate the report
of Baliwag and initiate, institute or recommend the conduct of
appropriate investigation immediately upon discovery of the
irregularity. As a supervisor, respondent was clearly negligent in the
performance of his duties.
Neglect of duty is the failure of an employee to give proper
attention to a task expected of him, signifying "disregard of a duty
resulting from carelessness or indifference."
Clearly, respondent failed to exercise the degree of care, skill, and
diligence which the circumstances warrant.
FELICITO S. MACALINO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN and OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN
[G.R. Nos. 140199-200. February 6, 2002]
Facts:
On September 16, 1992, two informations were filed with the
Sandiganbayan against petitioner,being then the Assistant Manager
of the Treasury Division and the Head of the Loans Administration &
Insurance Section of the Philippine National Construction
Corporation (PNCC), a government-controlled corporation, and his
wife, Liwayway S. Tan, charging them with estafa through
falsification of official documents and frustrated estafa through
falsification of mercantile documents. Upon arraignment, petitioner
pleaded not guilty to the charges.
However, during the initial presentation of evidence for the defense,
petitioner moved for leave to file a motion to dismiss on the ground
that the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over him since he is not a
public officer because the Philippine National Construction
Corporation (PNCC), formerly the Construction and Development
Corporation of the Philippines (CDCP), is not a government-owned
or controlled corporation with original charter.
On August 5, 1999, the Sandiganbayan promulgated a resolution
denying petitioners motion to dismiss for lack of merit.
The Issue:
Whether petitioner, an employee of the PNCC, is a public officer
within the coverage of R. A. No. 3019, as amended.
Ruling:
Inasmuch as the PNCC has no original charter as it was incorporated
under the general law on corporations, it follows inevitably that
petitioner is not a public officer within the coverage of R. A. No.
3019, as amended. Thus, the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over
him. The only instance when the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction
over a private individual is when the complaint charges him either as
a co-principal, accomplice or accessory of a public officer who has
been charged with a crime within the jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan.
However, in PP v. Sandiganbayan (16 February 2005), the Court ruled that
the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over presidents, directors or trustees, or
managers of GOCCs without original charter, for purposes of RA 3019. The
two cases can be reconciled as follows: In Macalino, the indictment was
against a mere employee of a GOCC without original charter not the
president, director, trustee nor manager, for estafa which is not among those
specific crimes cited in the Sandiganbayan Law (RA 8249). In PP v.
Sandiganbayan, the accused was the President and COO of the Philippines
Postal Savings Bank, a GOCC without original charter, indicted under RA
3019.So, GOCCs need not have original charters for Sandiganbayan
jurisdiction to attachfor violations of RA 3019 by Presidents, directors,
trustees or managers. In Marilyn Geduspan vs. PP (451 SCRA 187), it is of no
moment that the position of petitioner Geduspan as Manager of Philhealth, a
GOCC, is merely classified as salary grade 26. The position of Manager is one
of those mentioned in par. A, Section 4 of RA 8249. While the first part of the
above-quoted provision covers only officials of the executive branch with SG
27 and higher, the second part thereof specifically includes other executive
officials whose positions may not be of grade 27 and higher but who are by of the authorized capital stock of PPSB belongs to the government while the
express provision of law placed under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan rest is nominally held by its incorporators who are/were themselves officers
(ibid). Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of GOCCs are under the of PHILPOST. The creation of PPSB was expressly sanctioned by Section 32 of
RA 7354, otherwise known as the Postal Service Act of 1992, for purposes of,
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Petitioners Alzaga and Bello were head of
among others, to encourage and promote the virtue of thrift and the habit of
the Legal Department while petitioner Satuito was Chief of Documentation savings among the general public, especially the youth and the marginalized
with corresponding ranks of Vice Presidents and Asst. Vice President. sector in the countryside xxx and to facilitate postal service by receiving
Although these positions are not specifically enumerated in RA 8249, their collections and making payments, including postal money orders.[7]
ranks as VPs and AVP are even higher than that of managers (Alzaga, Bello
and Satuito vs. Sandiganbayan, 505 SCRA 849). It is not disputed that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over presidents,
directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled
corporations with original charters whenever charges of graft and corruption
Employees of the Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC) are
are involved. However, a question arises whether the Sandiganbayan has
not public officers within the coverage of RA 3019, inasmuch as PNCC has no
jurisdiction over the same officers in government-owned or controlled
original charter as it was incorporated under the general law on
corporations organized and incorporated under the Corporation Code in view
corporations, and the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over them
of the delimitation provided for in Article IX-B Section 2(1) of the 1987
(Macalino vs. Sandiganbayan, 376 SCRA 452).
Constitution which states that:
People Vs. Sandiganbayan
SEC. 2. (1) The Civil Service embraces all branches, subdivisions,
instrumentalities, and agencies of the government, including government-
owned or controlled corporations with original charters.
Does the Sandiganbayan have jurisdiction over presidents, directors or
trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled corporations
It should be pointed out however, that the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
organized and incorporated under the Corporation Code for purposes of the
is separate and distinct from the Civil Service Commission. The same is
provisions of RA 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
governed by Article XI, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution which provides
Practices Act?
that the present anti-graft court known as the Sandiganbayan shall continue
to function and exercise its jurisdiction as now or hereafter may be provided
The petitioner, represented by the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP),
by law. This provision, in effect, retained the jurisdiction of the anti-graft
takes the affirmative position in this petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of
court as defined under Article XIII, Section 5 of the 1973 Constitution which
the Rules of Court. Respondent Efren L. Alas contends otherwise, together
mandated its creation, thus:
with the respondent court.
Sec. 5. The Batasang Pambansa shall create a special court, to be known as
Pursuant to a resolution dated September 30, 1999 of the Office of the
Sandiganbayan, which shall have jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases
Ombudsman, two separate informations[1] for violation of Section 3(e) of RA
involving graft and corrupt practices and such other offense committed by
3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, were
public officers and employees, including those in government-owned or
filed with the Sandiganbayan on November 17, 1999 against Efren L. Alas.
controlled corporations, in relation to their office as may be determined by
The charges emanated from the alleged anomalous advertising contracts
law. (Italics ours)
entered into by Alas, in his capacity as President and Chief Operating Officer
of the Philippine Postal Savings Bank (PPSB), with Bagong Buhay Publishing
The legislature, in mandating the inclusion of presidents, directors or
Company which purportedly caused damage and prejudice to the
trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled corporations
government.
within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, has consistently refrained from
making any distinction with respect to the manner of their creation.
After a careful consideration of the arguments of the accused-movant as well
as of that of the prosecution, we are of the considered opinion that the
The deliberate omission, in our view, clearly reveals the intention of the
instant motion of the accused is well taken. Indeed, it is the basic thrust of
legislature to include the presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of
Republic Act as well as (sic) Presidential Decree No. 1606 as amended by
both types of corporations within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
President Decree No. 1486 and Republic Act No. 7975 and Republic Act No.
whenever they are involved in graft and corruption. Had it been otherwise, it
8249 that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction only over public officers unless
could have simply made the necessary distinction. But it did not.
private persons are charged with them in the commission of the offenses.
This Court, already mindful of the pertinent provisions of the 1987
The records disclosed that while Philippine Postal Savings Bank is a subsidiary
Constitution, ruled that the concerned officers of government-owned or
of the Philippine Postal Corporation which is a government owned
controlled corporations, whether created by special law or formed under the
corporation, the same is not created by a special law. It was organized and
Corporation Code, come under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan for
incorporated under the Corporation Code which is Batas Pambansa Blg. 68. It
purposes of the provisions of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
was registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission under SEC No.
Otherwise, as we emphasized therein, a major policy of Government, which
AS094-005593 on June 22, 1994 with a lifetime of fifty (50) years. Under its
is to eradicate, or at the very least minimize, the graft and corruption that
Articles of Incorporation the purpose for which said entity is formed was
has permeated the fabric of the public service like a malignant social cancer,
primarily for business, xxx
would be seriously undermined. In fact, Section 1 of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act embodies this policy of the government, that is, to
Dissatisfied, the People, through the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP),
repress certain acts not only of public officers but also of private persons
filed this petition[3] arguing, in essence, that the PPSB was a government-
constituting graft or corrupt practices or which may lead thereto.
owned or controlled corporation as the term was defined under Section
2(13) of the Administrative Code of 1987.[4] Likewise, in further defining the
The foregoing pronouncement has not outlived its usefulness. On the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, RA 8249 did not make a distinction as to
contrary, it has become even more relevant today due to the rampant cases
the manner of creation of the government-owned or controlled corporations
of graft and corruption that erode the peoples faith in government. For
for their officers to fall under its jurisdiction. Hence, being President and
indeed, a government-owned or controlled corporation can conceivably
Chief Operating Officer of the PPSB at the time of commission of the crimes
create as many subsidiary corporations under the Corporation Code as it
charged, respondent Alas came under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
might wish, use public funds, disclaim public accountability and escape the
liabilities and responsibilities provided by law. By including the concerned
officers of government-owned or controlled corporations organized and
We find merit in the petition.
incorporated under the Corporation Code within the jurisdiction of the
From the foregoing, PPSB fits the bill as a government-owned or controlled
Sandiganbayan, the legislature evidently seeks to avoid just that.
corporation, and organized and incorporated under the Corporation Code as
a subsidiary of the Philippine Postal Corporation (PHILPOST). More than 99%
Geduspan vs. People GR 158187
On July 11, 2002, an information was filed against petitioner Geduspan and
Dr. Farahmand, Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (Philhealth) Regional
Manager/Director and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Tiong Bi
Medical Center, Tiong Bi, Inc., respectively, for violating the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act.
Both accused filed a joint motion to quash dated July 29, 2002 contending
that the respondent Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over them
considering that the principal accused Geduspan was a Regional Director of
Philhealth, Region VI, a position classified under salary grade 26.
ISSUE: Does the Sandiganbayan have jurisdiction over a regional
director/manager of government-owned or controlled corporations
organized and incorporated under the Corporation Code for purposes of
RA3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act?
office as mayor to bring the case within the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan. Neither was there any allegation to show how he made use
of his position as mayor to facilitate the commission of the crimes charged.
For the purpose of determining jurisdiction, it is this allegation that is
controlling, not the evidence presented by the prosecution during the trial.
However, the prosecution is not precluded from filing the appropriate charge
against him before the proper court.
Petitioners Alzaga and Bello were head of the Legal Department while
petitioner Satuito was Chief of Documentation with corresponding ranks of
Vice Presidents and Asst. Vice President. Although these positions are not
specifically enumerated in RA 8249, their ranks as VPs and AVP are even
higher than that of managers (Alzaga, Bello and Satuito vs. Sandiganbayan,
505 SCRA 849).

RULING:
Yes. The records show that, although Geduspan is a Director of Region VI of
the Philhealth, she is not occupying the position of Regional Director but that
of Department Manager A. It is petitioners appointment paper and the
notice of salary adjustment that determine the classification of her position,
that is, Department Manager A of Philhealth.

The position of manager in a government-owned or controlled corporation,

as in the case of Philhealth, is within the jurisdiction of respondent court. It is
the position that petitioner holds, not her salary grade, that determines the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

Hence, respondent court is vested with jurisdiction over petitioner together

with Farahmand, a private individual charged together with her.

In Marilyn Geduspan vs. PP (451 SCRA 187), it is of no moment that the

position of petitioner Geduspan as Manager of Philhealth, a GOCC, is merely
classified as salary grade 26. The position of Manager is one of those
mentioned in par. A, Section 4 of RA 8249. While the first part of the above-
quoted provision covers only officials of the executive branch with SG 27 and
higher, the second part thereof specifically includes other executive officials
whose positions may not be of grade 27 and higher but who are by express
provision of law placed under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan (ibid).
Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of GOCCs are under the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

Art XI, Sec4

Adaza vs. Sandiganbayan, GR 154886
The Office of the Ombudsman issued a Resolution finding probable cause
against the spouses Mayor Adaza and wife Aristela Adaza. Two Informations
filed before the Sandiganbayan: falsification of voucher by counterfeiting the
signature of PTA President Mejoranda and falsification of DBP check by
counterfeiting the signature of Mejoranda, relating to the construction of a
school bldg consisting of 2 classrooms. Sandiganbayan found Mayor Adaza
guilty in the first case, but acquitted him and his wife in the second case.

ISSUE: Does the Sandiganbayan have jurisdiction if there was no allegation

showing that the act of falsification of public document attributed to him was
intimately connected to the duties of his office as mayor?

RULING: No. For an offense to fall under the exclusive original jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan, the following requisites must concur: (1) the offense
committed is a violation of (a) R.A. 3019, as amended (the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act), (b) R.A. 1379 (the law on ill-gotten wealth), (c)
Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code (the law on
bribery), (d) Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986
(sequestration cases), or (e) other offenses or felonies whether simple or
complexed with other crimes; (2) the offender committing the offenses in
items (a), (b), (c) and (e) is a public official or employee holding any of the
positions enumerated in paragraph A of Section 4; and (3) the offense
committed is in relation to the office.

Although petitioner was described in the information as a public officer

there was no allegation showing that the act of falsification of public
document attributed to him was intimately connected to the duties of his