republic of the philippines...

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SandiganbayanQUEZON CITY

SEVENTH DIVTSTON

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Crim. Case No. SB-16-CRM-0508I Plaintiff,

-versus-

frAnklin d. maata,Accused.

Present:

Gomez-Estoesta, J., ChairpersonTrespeses, J., andHidalgo, J.

Promulgated:

X

DECISION

GOMEZ-ESTOESTA, J.:

Accused Franklin D. Maata, City Engineer of Iligan City, standsch^ged with violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and CorruptPractices Act, for refusing to sign the Daily Time Record of a reassignedemployee who resisted his reassignment. Claiming that his failure to timelyreceive his salaries as a result of such refusal caused him undue injury, theemployee initiated this case, which resulted in the filing of the Informationwhich reads:

That sometime in August 2011, or prior or subsequent thereto, inIligan City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,the above-named accused. Franklin D. Maata, being then the CityEngineer of Iligan City, while in the performance of his administrativeand/or official function to supervise employees of the Motorpool and ShopServices Division, City Engineer's Office, taking advantage of his positionand committing the offense in relation to his duty to evaluate, approveand/or sign the Daily Time Records (DTRs) of said employees, acting withevident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence, did then and there,willfully, unlawfully and criminally refuse to acknowledge and/or sign theduly accomplished August 2011 DTR of Robert L. Ong, which resulted inthe withholding of the latter's salary for the said month and rice allowance

//•

People V. Franklin D. Maata 2 I P a g eCriminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0S08

DECISION

in the amounts of Thirty Thousand Three Hundred Fifty-Two Pesos0^30,352.00) and Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00), respectively, therebycausing undue injury to said Robert L. Ong in the aforesaid amounts.

CONTRARY TO LAW.'

A Hold Departure Ordei^ was issued against accused Maata on August16, 2016, followed by a Warrant of Arrest on September 13, 2016. OnOctober 14,2016, accused Maata posted cash bond"^ for his provisional liberty.

When arraigned, accused Maata pleaded not guilty.^

On September 8, 2017, accused Maata filed Motion to Quash^ theInformation on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. He argued that under R.A.10660, jurisdiction over cases involving transactions not exceedingP1,000,000.00 has been vested in the RTCs, and since the Information allegesundue injury of only P30,352.00, this Court has no jurisdiction over this case.In di Resolution'' dated September 14,2017, this Court denied outright accusedMaata's Motion, having been set for hearing beyond the ten-day periodrequired under Sec. 5, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, but likewise ruled thatthis Court had jurisdiction over the case, as R.A. No. 10660, which took effecton May 5, 2015, only applies to cases arising from offenses committed afterits effectivity, while the offense subject of this case was allegedly committedin August 2011.

During pre-trial, the parties made the following admissions and definedthe issue:^

I

ADMITTED FACTS

1. That at the time material to the case, accused Maata was a City EngineeroflliganCity.

2. That whenever referred to orally or in writing in the course of theproceedings, accused admits his identity as the same person charged inthe Information.

3. That the Honorable Court has jurisdiction over the case.

4. That private complainant, Robert L. Ong is an Engineer III of the CityEngineer's Office of Iligan City.

^ Records, Vol. 1, pp. 1-3^ Id., p. 1403 Id., p. 150

^/cf./PP. 185-1945 Id., pp. 206-207®/cf., pp. 250-256''Id., pp. 258-259® Joint Stipulation of Fact and Issue dated October 25, 2017, Id., pp. 291-299; Pre-Trial Order datedOctober 27, 2017, Id., pp. 305-311

I

People V. Franklin D. Maata 3 I p a g eCriminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0508

DECISION

5. That accused Maata as a City Engineer had the duty to supervise theI employees of the Motorpool and the Shop Services Division, City

Engineer's Office.

IV

ISSUE

Whether or not the accused is guilty of violation of Section 3(e) ofRepublic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and CorruptPractices Act.

Trial ensued.

EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION

The prosecution presented four (4) witnesses, who testified throughJudicial Affidavits. Upon stipulation, the testimonies of four (4) otherwitnesses were dispensed with. The prosecution's witnesses were:

1. Engr. Robert L. Ong ["Ong"],^ private complainant, has heldthe position of Engineer III at the City Government of Iligan jfi-om 1990 up tothe time he testified. As such, his functions were to supervise planning,accomplish repair works on equipment and machinery, and assist the EngineerIV in supervising the motorpool personnel.^®

Ong recalled that in 2010, while he was assigned at the Iligan CityWaterworks, he received a Memorandum^ ̂ signed by then Mayor LawrenceCruz reassigning him to the City Veterinarian's Office. He reported at theplace of assignment but appealed such reassignment to the Civil ServiceCommission. Said appeal was granted in a Decision^^ promulgated onSeptember 13,2011, but even prior thereto, or on July 13,2011, Mayor Cruzhad already assigned him back to his mother unit, the Motorpool and ShopServices Division under the Office of the City Engineer.

Shortly after his return to the Motorpool and Shop Division, however,or on July 21,2011, Ong received another Memorandum,^"* this time, fi*om hisinimediate supervisor and Chief of the Motorpool and Shop Services Division,Gino Alejo, noted by accused Maata, reassigning him to the city dumpsite inBrgy. Santiago. He signified his receipt of such Memorandum by signing itunder protest. Thereafter, he registered his attendance using the biometricmachine at the City Engineer's Office then proceeded to the dumpsite, but yet

® Judicial Affidavit dated November 19, 2017, Records, Vol. 1, pp. 383-W to 383-H®" Judicial Affidavit of Robert Ong, Q8tA Nos. 1-6" Exhibit "H"

" Decision dated September 13,2011, Exhibit "Y"" Memorandum dated July 13,2011, Exhibit "X"; Judicial Affidavit of Robert Ong, Q&A Nos. 7-13" Exhibit "1"

h-\

People V. Franklin D. Maata 4 I p a g eCriminal Case No. SB-1&-CRM-0508

DECmON

again appealed his reassignment with the CSC.^^ He visited the dumpsite fora week to determine if it was safe or hazardous, then continued to report at themother imit where the biometric machine was located. He did not continueto report at the dumpsite as he found it a toxic place, unrelated to his work,and it did not even have a biometric machine.^^ Insisting that Ong should havereported for work at the open dumpsite in compliance with the Memorandumdated July 21, 2011, accused Maata refused to sign his Daily Time Record(E)TR) for August 2011,^® rendering him unable to receive his salary and riceallowance for said month. His salary in August 2011 was more thanP30,000.00, with a rice allowance of fc,000.00.^® During this time, hereceived financial support fi-om his siblings, who also answered for his threechildren's education, as he and his wife were then already separated.^^

On April 23, 2014, the CSC rendered a favorable Decision^^ on hisappeal. He later clarified with the CSC his entitlement to backwages and otherbenefits,^^ and got an affirmative answer.^"* 'Answering another request forcMfication,^^ the CSC explained that its earlier opinion implied that Ong hadbe^n constructively dismissed when reassigned to the dumpsite.^^

Aggrieved by the withholding of his salaries and benefits for the monthof August 2011 because of accused Maata's unjustified and deliberate refusalto sign his DTR while he was assigned at the dumpsite, Ong likewise filed acomplaint^^ with the City Prosecutor's Office of Iligan City, which wasinitially dismissed, but ultimately prospered^^ into this case for Violation ofSe|c. 3(e) of R.A. 3019 on Ong's Petition for Review of Judgment.^^ A similarcase has been filed against Alejo with the Regional Trial Court of IliganCi^.30

In claiming his backwages and rice allowance for August 2011, Ongpresented his authenticated DTR^^ for said month signed by OlC-CityEngineer, Guideon Taban, along with the favorable CSC decision. Hereceived his backwages and rice allowance for August 2011 in the secondweek of October 2014.^^ By this time, accused Maata had already retired.^^

" Judicial Affidavit of Robert Ong, Q&A Nos. 4,14-20^®TSN dated November 22,2017 (p.m.), pp. 12-13,17"/d.,p.20

Exhibit "Q", as authenticated - letter dated September 12,2011, Exhibit "W" (Request forauthentication) - Exhibit "P"

Judicial Affidavit of Robert Ong, Q&A No. 59tSN dated November 22,2017 (p.m.), pp. 8-9" judicial Affidavit of Robert Ong, Q&A No. 68; TSN dated November 22,2017 (p.m.), p. 9« Exhibit "K"

^' Letter dated August 6,2014, Exhibit "L"CSC Resolution dated September 9,2014, Exhibit "M"

25 Letter dated April 29,2015, Exhibit "N"2® CSC Opinion No. 225, s. 2015, Exhibit "0"; Judicial Affidavit of Robert Ong, Q&A Nos. 21-3622 \|vith cover letter. Exhibit "A"2® Indorsement to the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao, Exhibit "D"2' Exhibit "C"; Judicial Affidavit of Robert Ong, Q&A Nos. 38-512® TSN dated November 22, 2017 (p.m.), pp. 9-10®2 Exhibit "E"

52 Judicial Affidavit of Robert Ong, Q&A Nos. 60-68; TSN dated November 22,2017 (p.m.), p. 1855 TSN dated November 22,2017 (p.m.), p. 19

//•

People V. Franklin D. Maata 5 I P a g eCriminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0508

DECISION .

On cross-examination, Ong explained that he reported to the motherumt instead of the dumpsite pending the CSC's ruling on his appeal, andwanted the matter to be settled before reporting at the dumpsite, which wasnpt even an office and did not have a biometric machine. He was the onlyeipployee assigned to the dumpsite, which was not even under the MotorpoolDivision, but under the supervision of the Barangay Captain of Brgy.S^tiago. It was the Public Services Office, under the jurisdiction of theMayor, and not the City Engineer's Office, that was in charge of themonitoring of the maintenance and proper upkeep of the dumpsite.^"^

Answering questions from the Court, Ong related that while hiscohiplaint covered only his salaries and benefits for August 2011, he did notreceive his salaiy for more than two years before the CSC ruled that he wasentitled to them.^^

2. Engr. Leonor T. Actub ["Actub"]^^ is the current Officer-in-charge City Engineer of Iligan City. She signs the daily time records of theemployees of the City Engineer's Office. On subpoena, she produced andidentified the Organizational Chart of the City Engineer's Office marked asE}^bit"T".3^

I

!

On cross-examination, she explained that the City Engineer's Officeconsists of eight (8) divisions, each of which has its own division head.^®Upder the present procedure, the division chief approves and affixes hisinitials on the DTK, before the same is submitted to the City Engineer.^^

I

3. Glenmoore F. Longakit ["Longakit"],^^ current HumanResource Management Officer IV, and concurrently the OIC-CHRMO of theCi^ Human Resource Management Office of Iligan City, testified that onsubpoena, his office submitted to the Office of the Ombudsman theOrganizational Chart of the City Engineer's Office."^^ He also mentioned thatDlRs are signed by both the employee and the department head, or in his/herab)sence, the OIC designate."^^

I 4. Ibarra B. Carampatan ["Carampatan"],"^^ has been theComputer Programmer III of the City Human Resource Management Officeof Iligan City since October 16, 2009 up to the time he testified. As such.

pp. 13-17,26

Id., pp. 22-24

35 Judicial Affidavit dated November 18,2017, Records, Vol. 1, pp. 383-H to 383-N3' Id., Q&A Nos. 1-93® TSN dated November 22,2017 (a.m.), p. 1139 Id., p. 13

^Judicial Affidavit dated November 18,2017, Records, Vol. 1, pp. 383-A to 383-GExhibit'T'

^3 Judicial Affidavit of Glenmoore Longakit, Q&A Nos. 5-11^3 Judicial Affidavit dated November 18,2017, Records, Vol. 1. pp. 383-N to 383-V

People V. Franklin D. Maata 6 | P a g eCriminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0508

DECISION

among his functions were to authenticate Daily Time Records upon therequest of employees, print employees' DTRs, administer databases, designand develop biometric programs, and monitor and manage the operation ofbiometrics,"^

Carampatan recalled that sometime in 2011, the City Human ResourceManagement Office received a letter"^^ from Engr. Robert Ong, requesting forverification, certification and authentication of his DTR for August 1-31,2011, which was attached to said letter. Upon verification, their databaseshowed that the attached copy of Ong's DTR was an authentic copy of thattaken from their system. He was, however, unaware of the actual particularsof the details in Ong's DTR. In a letter,"^' he advised Ong of the result of hisverification."*®

The testimonies of the following witnesses were dispensed with and infact stipulated upon:

5. Sheila C. Buque

a. That she is the Human Resource Management Officer 1 of the CityHuman Resource Management Office of the City Government of Iliganassigned at the Administrative Division, Records Section;

b. That one of her functions is to certify documents as true copies fromthe original or photocopy from office file, and that she has custody ofdocuments pertaining to personnel matters;

c. That the Office of the City Human Resource Management Office ofIligan received a subpoena from the Office of the Special Prosecutor requiringthe submission of the original or certified true copy from the original of thefollowing documents:

i. Daily Time Record of Robert Ong for August 1 to 31, 2011(Exhibit "E");

j ii. Re-assignment Order dated August 31, 2010 (Exhibit "H");

iii. Memorandum to Robert Ong dated July 21,2011 (Exhibit "I");

iv. Letter dated September 12, 2011 of Ibarra Carampatan (ExhibitI «W");

V. Memorandum to Robert Ong dated July 13, 2011 (Exhibit "X")and

vi. Position Description Form of Engineer III.

//^/d,Q&ANos. 2-4^ Exhibit "P"

Exhibit "Q"

^'Exhibit "W" ^^ Judicial Affidavit of Ibarra Carampatan, Q&A Nos. 5-18; TSN dated November 22,2017 (a.m.), p. 31 |

People V. Franklin D. Maata 7 I P a s eCriminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0508

DECISION

d. That aside from the Position Description Form of Engineer III, whichwas the subject of a certification,^^ all the above documents were submittedby the CHRMO to the Office of the Special Prosecutor, which the witnesscertified as certified true copies from the originals or certified photocopiesfrom the office file.^®

6. Raymundo E. Clavano, Jr.

a. That he is the QIC-City Accountant of Iligan;

b. That in connection with this case, he issued the following:

i. Certification dated October 13, 2016 marked as Exhibits "F" to"F-l" stating that:

This is to certify that as per record available in our payrollsystem, Engr. Robert L. Ong, Engineer III of the Motorpool & Shop

! Services Division, City Engineer's Office, had already received hissalary for the whole month of August 2011 indicating the followingperiod as shown below:

Period Covered Date Processed

August 1-20, 2011 - July 30, 2014August21-31,2011 - October7,2014

ii. Certification dated October 13, 2016 marked as Exhibit "G",stating that:

This is to certify that Engr. Robert L. Ong, Engineer III ofthe Motorpool Division, City Engineer's Office, has fully receivedall his back salaries and other benefits. And rice subsidies startingJuly 1,2011 up to June 30,2013 including August 2011 [which] wasreceived / released to him on the 2"'' week of October 2014.

iii. Certification dated October 17, 2016, marked as Exhibit "V",stating that the documents under the subpoena pertaining to thepayrolls for the salary and rice allowance for August 2011 havebeen submitted to the COA of Iligan City for final custody andsafekeeping.^^

7. Atty. Lorenzo A. Reyes 11

a. ! That he is a State Counsel and designated as QIC, NFS Docket Sectionof the National Prosecution Service, Department of Justice;

Exhibit "U"

™ tSN dated November 22, 2017 (a.m.), pp. 36-40" Id., pp. 47-49

//■

People V. Franklin D. Maata 8 I P a g eCriminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0508

DECISION

b. That one of the functions of his office is that it is in custody ofdocuments like resolutions promulgated by the Department of Justice andpleadings filed by a party;

c. That his office received a subpoena jfrom the Office of the SpecialProsecutor requiring the submission of the original or certified true copy fromthe original of the Petition for Review of Judgment dated March 28, 2012,fikd by Robert L. Ong with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Resolutionpi;omulgated by the DOJ on September 13, 2013;

d. That in compliance with the said subpoena, a certified true copy of theDOJ Resolution promulgated on September 13, 2013 and Indorsement datedOctober 2, 2013 were submitted to the Office of the Special Prosecutor,respectively marked as Exhibit "D" and Exhibits "C-2" and "C-3";

e. I That he can identify the DOJ Resolution promulgated on September 13,2013 and Indorsement dated October 2,2013; and as proposed by the defense,

f. That the Indorsement includes the Petition for Review from theResolution of the Office of the City Prosecutor of Iligan City in which thecomplaint filed by Engr. Robert L. Ong against Franklin Maata and one corespondent was dismissed.^^

8.1 Ariel G. RonquiHo^^

a. That he is presently the Assistant Commissioner employed at the CivilService Commission, Office of Legal Affairs;

b. That his Office received a subpoena from the Office of the SpecialProsecutor requiring the submission of the following documents:

i. Request for Clarification and Issuance of an Order, if Proper andNecessary (Exhibit "L")

ii. Request for Opinion/Order dated April 29, 2015 (Exhibit "N")

I iii. CSC OLA Opinion No. 222 s. 2015 (Exhibit "O") andiv. Urgent Request for Legal Opinion Relative to the OMB's

Decision docketed as OMB-M-A-365-H dated June 10,2013;

c. I In compliance with the said subpoena, his office submitted to the Officeofj the Special Prosecutor the certified true copies of the above-mentionedddcuments;

d. That his office has custody of said document and that he can identifythe said documents; and, as proposed by the defense;

.

e. That all the CSC memoranda were issued after the retirement of theaccused from government service;

//" Order dated November 29, 2017, Records, Vol. 1, pp. 399-301Who was not present in Court

People V. Franklin D. MaataCriminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0508

DECISION

9 I P a g e

f. That the Opinion was rendered after the accused's retirement on March5,12013.5"

The Prosecution then proceeded to offer the following documentaryevidence:'^

Exhibit Document"A" Cover Letter and Complaint-Affidavit of Engr. Robert L. Ong dated

September 27,2011"B" Resolution of the City Prosecutor's Office in NPS Doc. No. X-08-

INV-09G-00726 dated January 12,2012«c« Petition for Review of Judgment dated March 28,2012«C-2" Indorsement dated October 2,2013«D" DOJ Resolution dated September 13,2013"E" Daily Time Record of Robert Ong for the month of August 1-31,2011«p»» Certification dated October 13,2016«G" Certification dated October 13,2016

Reassignment Order dated August 31,2010(CJ99 Memorandum to Robert Ong dated July 21,2011«j« Urgent Request for Legal Opinion relative to the OMB's Decision

docketed as OMB-M-A-11-365-H dated June 10, 2013«K» CSC Decision No. 14-0308 dated April 23,2014"L" Request for Clarification and Issuance of an Order, if proper and

necessary dated August 6,2014"M" CSC Resolution No. 14-01315 dated September 9,2014

Request for Opinion/Order dated April 29,2015"0" CSC Opinion dated May 25,2015«tp»» Letter-Request of Robert Ong dated September 9,2011«Q« Daily Time Record of Engr. Robert Ong for August 1-31, 2011

(unsigned by accused Maata)Organizational Chart of the City Engineer's Office

«U" Certification dated September 1,2010«V" Certification dated October 17,2016

Letter dated September 12,2011 of Ibarra Carampatan"X" Memorandum to Robert Ong dated July 13,2011«tY»> CSC Decision dated September 13,2011

In a Resolutiorf^ dated March 5, 2018, this Court admittftH all theexhibits offered by the Prdsecution. On April 17,2018, accused Maata filedMotionfor Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence, which this Court denied forhaving filed out of time, and for not having raised a specific ground, contraryto I what was required under Section 23 of Rule 119.5* Accused Maata'sMotion for Reconsideratiotf^ was likewise denied,®® prompting him to insteadpresent evidence in his defense.

^ Order dated November 29,2017, Records, Vol. 1, pp. 399-301Formal Offer of Documentary Evidence, Records, Vol. 1, pp. 421-541

^ Records, Vol. 2, pp. 11-13." vyith attached Demurrer to Evidence, Id., pp. 23-30

Resolution dated April 25,2018, Id., pp. 36-39Id., pp. 43-16Order dated May 11,2018, Id., p. 49

f\

People V. Franklin 0. Maata 10 | P a g eCriminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0508

DECISION

EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE

Accused Maata proceeded to present the following witnesses, whotestified by Judicial Affidavits:

1. Engr. Franklin D. Maata ["accused Maata"], accused, wasthe City Engineer of Iligan at the time relevant to this case, and retired fromgovernment service on March 5,2013. He denied the accusations against him,attributing them to malicious intent on the part of private complainant Ong.^^

Accused Maata recounted that the City Engineer's Office receipt of therecall order from the Office of the Mayor assigning Ong back to theMotorpool and Maintenance Division on July 21, 2011 coincided with arequest for heavy equipment at the city dumpsite, and a corresponding needfor an engineer to supervise said heavy equipment. The division head of theMotorpool and Maintenance Division thus issued a Memorandum to Ong,directing him to supervise said equipment, as part of his job description.However, when Ong reported to the Motorpool and Maintenance Division onJuly 25,2011, he received the Memorandum under protest, and never reportedat; his place of assignment until the heavy equipment was returned to theOffice of the Engineer. Still, Ong demanded that accused Maata sign his DTRand payroll for July 21 and 22,2011, but he refused, as Ong reported for workoiily on July 25,2011, as he himself admitted.^^

Further, since receiving the Memorandum under protest, Ong nolohger reported for work, as attested by several witnesses, and shown by thelogbook, which did not show his signature. The division head did not sign hisDTR and payroll, which was a requisite before he affixed his signature as CityEngineer on these documents to be submitted to the Human ResourceManagement ̂ d Accounting Offices.^ Without particular reference toOhg's August 2011 DTR, accused Maata pointed to some "admissions" byOng that he did not report for work in an affidavit before the Office of theOmbudsman in a charge against him for falsification and dishonesty as wellas findings of the Office of the City Prosecutor of Iligan^^ and the Office ofthe Ombudsman.^^

On cross-examination, accused Maata confirmed that it was part of hisduty to sign duly-accomplished DTRs of employees in the City Engineer's

;Judicial Affidavit dated May 5,2017, Records^ Vol. 2, pp. 55-59" Id., Q&A Nos. 2, 5 ^

Id., Q&A Nos. 5-9, Affidavit dated July 25,2011 (unmarked) 7Q&A Nos. 10-11 '

® Counter-Affidavit in Case Nos. OMBO-M-C-12-0122 and OMB-M-A-12-120-D, Exhibit "7" YExhibit "4" '„ I

" Dated November 14,2014 (unmarked)

People V. Franklin D. Maata 111 P a g eCriminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0508

DECISION

Office.^® He insisted that Ong's assignment to the dumpsite to superviseheavy equipment was not an assignment outside the City Engineer's Office.^^

2. £ngr. Gino LI. Alejo ["Alejo"],^® currently Engineer IV, hasbeen with the City Engineer's Office of Iligan since 19867^ In July 2011, hewhs assigned as Division Head of the Motorpool and Shop Services Divisionof the City Engineer's Office, where his functions included supervising lightand heavy equipment, pre-repair inspection, assigning personnel and heavyequipment to places wiA the conformity of the City Engineer, and inspectionof dispatched heavy equipment.^^

Alejo explained that the Public Services Division of Iligan Cityrequested that heavy equipment belonging to the City Engineer's Office bebrought to the dumpsite; dius, it was necessary that an engineer be assignedto supervise the operation and maintenance of said heavy equipment, and toreport back to the office after inspection.^^ He corroborated accused Maata'stestimony on the need to send Ong to the dumpsite to supervise heavyequipment, and his failure to report for work therein. He also testified thatOng did not report for work particularly in August 2011, which was why theydid not sign his DTR for said month. Alejo maintained that he did not seeOng report for work at the Motorpool and Shops Division for the whole monthof August 2011, and that he did not sign their logbook.^"^

On cross-examinaition, Alejo confirmed that Ong was assigned to thedumpsite on July 21, 2011, the same day that their office received the RecallOrder from the Office of the Mayor. Alejo also confirmed that MayorLawrence Cruz was his fourth-degree relative.^^

Answering questions fi-om the Court, Alejo testified that the heavyequipment had been at the dumpsite even before July 21, 2011, or Ong'sassignment thereat. Prior to assigning Ong, he was the one who supervisedthe heavy equipment at the dumpsite. When Ong returned to work, he wasthe person that came to his mind to assign at the dumpsite as their office wasundermanned. There were only three of them at the office then, includingEngr. Dwight Balat, who was more junior than Ong, but he was then assignedto do repairs and should at all times be in the shop. When Ong did not reportfor work at the dumpsite, he did not assign another engineer, but himselfperformed Ong's supposed assignment.^^

Accused Maata then offered the following exhibits

®®TSN dated May 28,2018 (a.m.), pp. 15-16pp. 18-20

Judicial Affidavit dated May 21,2018, Records, Vol. 2, pp. 51-54/cf., Q&A Nos. 1,4 ■ J >Id., Q8iA No. 6 '

''/d.,Q&ANos.-7-10Id., Q&A Nos. 11-12

" TSN dated May 28, 2018 (a.m.), pp. 27-28pp. 28-31

Formal Offer of Documentary Evidence of the Accused dated June 4,2018, Records, Vol. 2, pp. 71-117

People V. Franklin D. Maata 12 | P a g eCriminal Case No. SB-1&-CRM-0508

DECISION

Exhibit Document

Certification from the Office of the City Accountant of Iligan datedMarch 22,2017

«2" Certification from the Office of the City Treasurer of Iligan«3» Certification from the Office of the City Accountant of Iligan dated

January 5,2017

Resolution of the Office of the City Prosecutor of Iligan City datedJanuary 12,2012

"5" Decision of the Office of the Ombudsman dated June 13,2012«6» Joint Resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman dated October 23,

2015

Counter-Affidavit of Robert Ong dated May 22,2012

This Court admitted only Exhibits "4", "5", "6", and "7" and excludedE^diibits "1", "2", and "3" for lack of authentication^^ With the filing of theparties' respective Memoranda, this case was submitted for Decision.

THE COURTIS RULING

It is beyond dispute that accused Maata did not sign complainant RobertOng's DTK for August 2011. According to the prosecution and as alleged inthe Information, this was done with evident bad faith or gross inexcusablenegligence, and caused undue injury to Ong amounting to his salary and riceallowance for said month, in violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. 3019, whichprovides:

Section 3, Corrupt practices of public officers, — In additionI to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the

following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and arehereby declared to be unlawful.

XXX

(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including theGovernment, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits,advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative orjudicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or grossinexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers andemployees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant oflicenses or permits or other concessions.

The following are the essential elements of violation of Sec. 3(e) of RA3019: y

I/"

Resolution dated June 26,2018, Id., pp. 123-124 \^ Memorandum for the Prosecution dated August 17,2018, Id., pp. 140-156; Memorandum for Accused 1dated September 4,2018, Id., pp. 158-171

People V. franklin D. Maata 13 I P a g eCriminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0508

DECISION

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 orj 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."*®

I That accused Maata was a public officer, being a City Engineer ofIligan City, at the time material to this case, and as such had the duty tosupervise the employees of the Motorpool and the Shop Services Division, areadinitted.^^ Moreover, it is undisputed that Ong was from the Office of theCi^ Engineer, and his DTK required the signature of accused Maata.

IWhat is left to determine is the existence of the second and third

elements.

Accused Maata's refusal to sign Ong *s DTRfor August 2011 was attended with evidentb^dfaith.

The events leading to the filing of this case unfolded with the issuanceby Gino LI. Alejo, Chief of the Motorpool and Shop Services Division, of thefollovrag Memorandum dated July 21, 2011,^^ which was noted by accusedMaata:

This is in connection with the RECALL ORDER of the City MayorHonorable Lawrence LI. Cruz directing you to report back to the CityEngineer's office.

Please be inform[ed] that you are assigned effective upon receipthereof at the city dumpsite, Barangay Santiago for the Preventive

1 Maintenance Schedule (PMS) and maintain close supervision over fieldoperations of the heavy equipments (sic) (bulldozers & loaders) which arebeing used, thereat.

i

You will report immediately to the undersigned any problem andj defects of the heavy equipments (sic) under your jurisdiction, including

personnel manning.

Please be guided accordingly.

After receiving this Memorandum under protest and resolving that thedumpsite was not an appropriate place to work, Ong concededly desisted from

Consigna v. People, eta!., G.R. Nos. 175750-51, April 2, 2014Joint Stipulation of Fact and Issue dated October 25,2017, Records, Vol. 1, pp. 291-299; Pre-Trlal Order

dated October 27,2017, Id., pp. 305-311Exhibit "I" /

/


DECISION

reporting for work at the dumpsite, but came to the City Engineer's Office andregistered his attendance at the biometric machine.®^ For his obstinatedesistance from reporting for work as directed under the Memorandum, hisdirect supervisor, Gino Alejo, and City Engineer, accused Maata, refused tosign his Daily Time Record, particularly for August 2011.

j In his defense, accused Maata explained that the heavy equipment usedat! the dumpsite belonged to the City Engineer's Office, and had to besupervised by an engineer from the Motorpool and Maintenance Division.Ttius, the reassignment was in line with Ong's job description.

This Court need not belabor the validity of Alej o' s Memorandum whichhas been settled with finality by the Civil Service Commission in its Decisiondated April 23,2014,^"^ where it found:

Neither the Chief, Motorpool and Shop Service Division GinoLI. Alejo, vi'ho issued the subject reassignment memorandum to theCity Dumpsite nor the City Engineer Franklin D. Maata, who ̂'noted"said order, are agency heads or the appointing authority of Ong, whois duly authorized to issue reassignment orders or memoranda. Theymay validly recommend to the appointing authority - the City Mayor, thereassignment of Ong, for the City Mayor to consider in issuing thereassignment order. Thus, it should be the Mayor, who is the head ofagency or the appointing authority who should have issued the order ormemorandum. This being the case, the subject reassignment should bestruck down as invalid.

Even granting that the reassignment order was issued by the headof agency or the appointing authority, the reassignment of personnel is notabsolute. The managerial prerogative to reassign personnel must beexercised without grave abuse of discretion and should be in consonancewith the parameters laid down under pertinent law and rules in the civilservice.

Moreover, the aforequoted Revised Rules on Reassignmentlikewise provides, as follows:

XXX

"Reassignment shall be governed by the following rules:

XXX

7. Reassignment is presumed to be regular and made in theinterest of public service unless proven otherwise or if it constitutesconstructive dismissal xxx.

'a) Reassignment of an employee to perform duties andresponsibilities inconsistent with the duties andresponsibilities of his/her position such as from a positionof dignity to a more servile or menialjob;

'b) Reassignment to an office not in the existing organizationalstructure;

Judicial Affidavit of Robert Ong, Q&A No. 10, Records, Vol. 1, p. 383-Z®^iExhibit "K" 9

People V. Franklin D. Maata 15 | p a g eCriminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0508

DECISION

'c) Reassignment to an existing office but the employee is notgiven any definite duties and responsibilities;

'd) Reassignment that will cause significant financialdislocation or will cause difficulty or hardship on the partofthe employee because of geographical location; and

'e) Reassignment that is done indiscriminately or whimsicallybecause the law is*not intended as a convenient shieldforthe appointing/disciplining authority to harass or oppressa subordinate on the pretext of advancing and promotinginterest."

A thorough evaluation of Ong's reassignment shows that the sameclearly violates Rule 7(a) of the aforementioned rules.

Ong is an Engineer III, not a mechanic. It is not difficult todecipher that the maintenance of the two (2) units of heavy equipmentpurportedly in the City Dumpsite, is not within his duties andfunctions, and thus, there is a clear diminution in rank or status for anEngineer III like Ong. Besides, the preventive maintenance is alreadybeing done by the Public Services Division (PSD)[,] a group under the CityMayor's Office, as pointed out by Ong in his Appeal Memorandum.

Further, the two (2) units of heavy equipment had already beenpulled out fi:om the dumpsite some time after his reassignment to the CityDumpsite. Thus, the purpose for which Ong's reassignment to the CityDumpsite is no longer existent leaving him without any definite duties andresponsibilities to perform, in violation of Section 7(c) of the above-citedrules.

This is not to mention that in the first place, said Dumpsite is notan existing office in the organizational structure of Iligan Citygovernment, thus, in violation of Section 7(b) of the Revised Rules onReassignment.

XXX

For all the infirmities suffered by the assailed Memorandumreassigning Ong to the City Dumpsite, the same should be strucked(sic) down for having been issued in violation of the pertinentprovisions of the rules on reassignment, (emphases supplied)

The Civil Service Commission is the sole arbiter of controversiesrelating to the civil service.^^ As held in Mantala vs. Salvador,^^ casesinvolving personnel actions, reassignment included, affecting civil serviceemployees, are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Civil ServiceCommission.®^ In Reyes v. Belisario, et a/.,®® the Supreme Court underscoredthe primary jurisdiction of the CSC in determining the validity ofreassignments, which should be accorded due respect and recognition. In saidcase, the Supreme Court ruled that in resolving a complaint for Oppressionand Harassment, the Ombudsman should have considered the CSC's

/G.R. No. 154652, August 14, 2009 ^ ,

^ blanda v. Bugayong, etai, G. R. No. 140917, October 10,2003G.R. No. 101646, February 13,1992

^ Corsiga v. Defensor, etai, G.R. No. 139302, October 28,200288

People V. Franklin D. Maata 16 | P a g eCriminal Case No. S6-16-CRM-0508

DEaSION

determination on the validity of such reassignments, and judged the allegedactions mainly on the basis of whether they constituted acts of harassment andoppression.

Proceeding from the CSC's finding that Ong's reassignment to thedumpsite was invalid, this Court is tasked to determine if evident bad faithattended accused Maata's refusal to sign Ong's DTR for August 2011.

At the outset, the CSC, in its Resolution dated September 9, 2014^^ruled that Ong was entitled to his back salaries, "provided that the HumanResource Office of the Iligan City Government has evidence of hisattendance at work as borne out by his Daily Time Records (DTR)". Onghas already received his backwages for August 2011, indicating that thisrequirement has been complied with.

In any event, the prosecution sufficiently established that Ong reportedfor work for the whole month of August 2011. Ong's August 2011 DTR,which accused Ong did not sign, was authenticated by prosecution witnessIbarra B. Carampatan, Computer Programmer III of the Iligan City HumanResource Management Office, "based on [the office's] database record in thebiometric system."

The DTR reflects the official attendance of the employee in the absenceof proof that the employee concerned has falsified his DTR.^® Moreover, theentries in his DTR were verified from the Human Resource ManagementOffice's biometric system. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, thepresumption of regularity in the performance of their official functions mustbe upheld.^^

I While accused Maata was silent as to Ong's attendance for the monthof August 2011, addressing only issues in his July 2011 DTR which isextraneous to this case,^^ defense witness Gino Alejo testified that he did notsee Ong report for work at the Motorpool and Shops Division for the wholemonth of August 2011, and that the logbook did not bear Ong's signature forthe month of August 2011.^^ This, however, is entirely unsubstantiated, asneither the purported logbook or any other witness was presented to attest thatOng was indeed absent from work in August 2011. More importantly, thesebare assertions barely match the probative value of Ong's DTR, the regularityof which, as discussed, is presumed, and was never controverted.

I Neither does this Court find credence in accused Maata's assertion thatOng admitted in his counter-affidavit that he did not report for work after hisreassignment to the dumpsite. A reading of said counter-affidavit^'* wouldshow that Ong was not particularly referring to his August 2011 attendancewhen he stated that after his reassignment, he "[could not] just enter the Motor

/Exhibit "M"

^Artuz V. CA, et ai, G.R. No. 142444, September 13, 2001Ibid. ^See Q&A Nos. 9-11 of accused Maata's Judicial Affidavit, Records, Vol. 2, pp. 56-57 y *Judicial Affidavit of Gino Alejo, Q&A No. 12 / I

^''Exhibit"?" y


DECISION

Pool and Shops Division of the CEO and render supervision over the repairsof equipment as [he could] always be held accountable for everything (sic)untoward incident or accident diat may happen inside the worksite evenwithout [his] participation."

What appears clear is that the reason why Alejo and accused Maatarefused to sign Ong's DTR for August 2011 was his failure to report for workaf the dumpsite, as directed under the Memorandum dated July 21, 2011.

I Evident bad faith connotes a manifest deliberate intent on the part ofthe accused to do wrong or cause damage. It connotes not only bad judgmentbut also palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do moralobliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will.^^ ThisCourt finds it hard to believe that accused Maata earnestly relied on the toutedvalidity and fairness of the Memorandum dated July 21,2011, issued by Alejoarid noted by him, in refusing to sign Ong's DTR for non-compliancetihlerewith. In addition to the CSC's fmding that said Memorandum wasinvalid, this Court also finds that it was issued and implemented by both Maataand Alejo with utmost bad faith.

Ong was practically exiled to a garbage dumpsite indefinitely as hisplace of work. His apparent task was to closely supervise heavy equipmentused at the dumpsite, since that was his only task, as specified in theniemorandum. This speaks loudly of accused Maata's disregard not only ofOng's position as Engineer III, but even more importantly, his health and self-worth, which cannot be muted by the mere pretense that he was assigned tosupervise heavy equipment, as provided in his job description. As testified byAlejo, even before Ong's very opportune reassignment to the dumpsitepromptly upon his return to the Motorpool and Maintenance Division, thedumpsite had been operational, and the heavy equipment supervised, evenwithout a permanently-assigned engineer to do it. According to Alejo:

CHAIRPERSON

Q: Engr. Alejo, when was this heavy equipment placed in theDumpsite? Would you know?

WITNESS:

A:

Q

A

Q

A

Medyo matagal na pa na kwan 'yun, na request.

The heavy equipment?

Yes, your Honor.

It was already there before July 21?

Yes, your Honor.

During that time, who was the engineer assigned by theEngineering Office to supervise, monitor, check?

A: Ako rin po ang pumupunta sa lahat ng *yan,

Q: Personally?

95 M.A. Jimenez Enterprises, inc. v. Ombudsman, et al., G.R. No. 155307, June 6,2011 f


DECISION

18 I P a g e

A: Yes, your Honor.

Q: You have not assigned any member of the EngineeringOffice to be there and supervise it?

A: Wala po.

Q: Why (Jid you think of Engr. Ong to be assigned there on themoment that you received the supposed recall order when heshould be reporting back to the City Engineer's Office, mainoffice?

A: Kasi po kulang 'yung personnel ko sa opisina kaya nungbumalik sya, sya ang nilagay ko sa (inaudible) field ng mgaequipment na nasa operations.

Q: But you said you have not assigned anyone?

A: Ako po angpumupunta.

Q: You were the one?

A: Yes, your Honor. ,

Q: Why? How many members are there in the CityEngineering's Office?

A: Dalawa lang po kaming naiwan na engineer at the time,your Honor.

There were only two of us left during that time, your Honor.

Q: You and... can you mention the name of the other engineer?

A: Engr. Dwight Balat.

Q: Have you not thought of assigning Engr. Dwight to thedumpsite?

A: I did not, your Honor.

Q: Why? Is he more senior orjunior in rank?

A: Junior, your Honor.

Q: Should it not be the one junior in rank [who] should beassigned to a dumpsite?

A: Because I assigned him with repairs, your Honor, so heshould be the one left at the shop.^^ (emphases supplied)

Accused Maata's refusal to sign the DTK, notwithstanding that Onghad been reporting to the Motorpool and Maintenance Division, as establishedby the prosecution, takes the form of punishment for Ong's refusal to workunder the extremely hostile conditions they laid for him.

96tSN dated May 28, 2018, pp. 28-30

f\

/■

\


DECISION

Undue injuty has not been established

There are two ways by which a public official violates Section 3(e) ofR.A. No. 3019 in the performance of his functions, namely: (1) by causingundue injury to any party, including the Government; or (2) by giving ̂ yprivate party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference. The accusedmay be charged under either mode or both. The disjunctive term "or" connotesthk either act qualifies as a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. Inother words, the presence of one would suffice for conviction.^^

In this case, there is no allegation that accused Maata's refusal to signOhg's DTR was done to give unwarranted benefits to any party. Thus, thisCourt is left to determine if such refusal to sign the DTR caused undue injurytoj Ong, as alleged in the Information.

Undue injury in Sec. 3[e] of the law cannot be presumed even after awrong has been established. Llorente v. Sandiganhayar?^ is instructive:

In jurisprudence, "undue injury" is consistently interpreted as"actual damage." Undue has been defined as "more than necessary, notproper, [or] illegal;" and injury as "any wrong or damage done to another,either in his person, rights, reputation or property [; that is, the] invasion ofany legally protected interest of another." Actual damage, in the contextof these definitions, is akin to that in civil law.

In tum, actual or compensatory damages is defined by Article 2199of the Civil Code as follows:

"Art. 2199. Except as provided by law or bystipulation, one is entitled to an adequate compensation only forsuch pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. Suchcompensation is referred to as actual or compensatory damages."

Fundamental in the law on damages is that one injured by a breachof a contract, or by a wrongful or negligent act or .omission shall have a fairand just compensation commensurate to the loss sustained as a consequenceof the defendant's act. Actual pecuniary compensation is awarded as ageneral rule, except where the circumstances warrant the allowance of otherkinds of damages. Actual damages are primarily intended to simplymake good or replace the loss caused by the wrong.

Furthermore, damages must not only be capable of proof, butmust be actually proven with a reasonable degree of certainty. Theycannot be based on flimsy and non-substantial evidence or uponspeculation, conjecture or guesswork. They cannot include speculativedamages which are too remote to be included in an accurate estimate of theloss or injury, (emphases supplied)

/®^'Co/omo V. Sandiganbayan, etai, G.R. No. 205561, September 24,2014®®;G.R. No. 122166, March 11,1998

1

People V. Franklin D. Maata 20 | P a g eCriminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-050&

DECISION

While the Information alleges undue injury suffered by Ong in theamount withheld from him in August 2011 when accused Maata refused tosign his DTR, i.e., his salary amoimting to P30,352.00, and his rice allowancearhoimting to P2,000.00, ironically, the only evidence presented by theprosecution to establish Ong's monthly compensation was his payslip for saidmonth,^^ proving instead that he has already been paid. This much is notdisputed. In fact, among the evidence presented by the prosecution is thefollowing Certification from the Office of the City Accountant of IliganCity:^o^

This is to certify that as per record available in our payroll system,Engr. Robert L. Ong, Engineer.Ill of the Motorpool & Shop ServicesDivision, City Engineer's Office, had already received his salary for thewhole month of August 2011 indicating the following period as shownbelow:

Period Covered Date Processed

August 1-20,2011 - July 30,2014August 21 -31,2011 - October 7,2014

As explained in Llorente, undue injury as contemplated under Sec. 3(e)of R.A. 3019 is interpreted as actual damage, which, in turn, is intended tomake good or replace a loss. Actual damages are such compensation ordamages for an injury that will put the injured party in the position in whichhe had been before he was injured.'®^

As prosecution evidence shows, Ong has already received hisbackwages for August 2011 in 2014, and as of said date, there was nothingmore to compensate.

In Llorente v. Sandiganbayan cited above, the accused mayor wascharged with violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. 3019 for refusing to sign andapprove the payrolls and vouchers representing the payments of the salariesand other emoluments of the complainant, resulting in her failure to receiveher salaries. This Court held that the delay or withholding of her salariescaused complainant undue injury. The Supreme Court, in reversing thisCourt's Decision, found that complainant was not entirely blameless for thedelay in the approval of her claims. The Supreme Court went on to explain:

In this case, the complainant testified that her salary and allowancefor the period beginning July 1990 were withheld, and that her familyunderwent financial difficulty which resulted from the delay in thesatisfaction of her claims. As regards her money claim, payment of hersalaries from January 1991 until November 19,1991 was evidenced bythe Sheriffs Return dated November 19, 1991 (Exh. D). She also

Exhibit "F-1"

Certifications dated October 13,2016 marked as Exhibits "F" and "G"

Metal (Corporation) v. Sps. Lomotan, etal., G.R. No. 170813, April 16,2008 //

People V. Franklin D. Maata 211 P a g eCriminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0508

DECISION

admitted having been issued a check on January 4, 1994 to cover hersalary from June 1 to June 30, 1990; her salary differential from July1,1989 to April 30,1990; her thirteenth-month pay; her cash gift; andher clothing allowances. Respondent Court found that all her monetaryclaims were satisfied. After she fully received her monetaiy claims,there is no longer any basis for compensatory damages or undue injury,there being nothing more to compensate.

Complainant's testimony regarding her family's financial stress wasinadequate and largely speculative. Without giving specific details, she

! made only vague references to the fact that her four children were all goingto school and that she was the breadwinner in the family. She, however, didnot say that she was unable to pay their tuition fees and the specific damage

I brought by such nonpayment. The fact that the "injury" to her family wasI unspecified or unquantified does not satisfy the element of undue injury, as

akin to actual damages. As in civil cases, actual damages, if not supportedby evidence on record, cannot be considered.

Other than the amount of the withheld salaries and allowances whichI were eventually received, the prosecution failed to specify and to prove any^ other loss or damage sustained by the complainant. Respondent Court

insists that complainant suffered by reason of the "long period of time" thather emoluments were withheld.

I This inconvenience, however, is not constitutive of undue injury.In Jacinto^^^ this Court held that the injury suffered by thecomplaining witness, whose salary was eventually released and whoseposition was restored in the plantilla, was negligible; undue injuryentails damages that are more than necessary or are excessive,improper or illegal. In Alejandro, the Court held that the hospitalemployees were not caused undue injury, as they were in fact paid theirsalaries, (emphases supplied)

In Jacinto v. Sandiganbayan, the Supreme Court ruled that no real oractual damage was suffered by a complainant whose salary was withheld,since she eventually got such salary released, and her name restored in theplantilla. In Alejandro v. People where the petitioner incurred over-expenditures at the expense of the hospital's employees' salaries, the SupremeCourt held that there was no undue injury caused to them as they were in factlater paid their salaries.

I The prosecution has the duty to prove each and every element of thecrime charged in the information to warrant a finding of guilt for the saidcrime or for any other crime necessarily included therein.^^^ However, in thecase at bar, the prosecution failed to prove the essential element of undueinjury to Robert Ong, there being proof, instead, that he has already receivedhis August 2011 salaries and rice allowance.

Jacinto vs. Sandiganbayan, 178 SCRA 254,259, October 2,1989Alejandro v. People, 170 SCRA 400,405, February 20,1989.

10^ 178 SCRA 254, 259, October 2,1989170 SCRA 400,405, February 20,1989.

^°^ Andaya v. People, G.R. No. 168486, June 27, 2006

\

People V. Franklin D. MaataICrimlnal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0508DECISION

22 I P a g e

In the absence of the third element, no criminal liability can be imputedagainst accused Maata. !

WHEREFORE, for failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt ofiaccused FRANKLIN D. MAATA beyond reasonable doubt, he isACQUITTED of the crime charged.i

The cash bond posted by accused Maata is ordered released subject tothe usual accounting procedures. The Hold Departure Order issued by thisjCourt on August 16, 2016 is set aside and the Order issued by the Bureau ofiImmigration incorporating the name of the accused in the Hold Departure Listis ordered recalled and cancelled. i

SO ORDERED.

9^MA. THERESA DCmQRES C. GGMEZ-ESTGESTA

Associaw Justice, Chairperson

WE CONCUR:

:SPESES

Associ(M JusticeGEGRGBVA

Associa

i/D. HTOALGG

\e Justice

ATTESTATION

jI attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in

consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of theCourt's Division.

MA. THERESA Ij^LGRES C. GGMEZ-ESTGESTAChaijperson, Seventh Division


DECISION

23 I P a g e

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and theDivision Chairman's Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions inthe above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assignedto the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

»ARO M. CABQ1^®-TANGPresiding Justice

i:

republic of the philippines...

Documents