OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENTIAL ANTI-GRAFT COMMISSION, PETITIONERS, VS. CALIXTO R. CATAQUIZ, RESPONDENT.

Office of the President and Presidential Anti-Graft Commission versus Cataquiz

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by the Office of the President and the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission against Calixto Cataquiz, whom the Office of the President had dismissed from his post as General Manager of the Laguna Lake Development Authority. The case matters because it is a compact lesson on three things a Bar candidate must command: the narrow room for reviewing the factual findings of the Court of Appeals under Rule 45, the constitutional duty of courts to state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law of their decisions, and the rule that the accessory penalty follows the principal penalty. It also shows how the Supreme Court treats the factual findings of administrative agencies when supported by substantial evidence.

Procedural History

The Presidential Anti-Graft Commission investigated the charges against Cataquiz and recommended his dismissal. The Office of the President, in a decision dated June 29, 2004, adopted the findings and recommendations of the Commission and dismissed Cataquiz from the service, with the accessory penalties of disqualification from re-employment in the government service and forfeiture of retirement benefits. Cataquiz moved for reconsideration and for new trial. The Office of the President then issued an amended resolution on February 10, 2005, imposing only the accessory penalties, since the principal penalty of dismissal could no longer apply because he had already been replaced as General Manager.

Cataquiz elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals by petition for review. The Court of Appeals, in its decision of January 31, 2008, reversed and set aside the amended resolution. It held that the accessory penalties could not be imposed because the principal penalty of dismissal was not enforced, that the resolution invoked against him was not the correct basis, and that the acts charged were within his authority as general manager. The Office of the President and the Commission then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

Facts

Cataquiz was appointed General Manager of the Laguna Lake Development Authority on April 16, 2001. On April 1, 2003, a majority of the members of the Management Committee and the rank-and-file employees petitioned the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources for his ouster, citing corrupt and unprofessional behavior and management incompetence. The Secretary formed an investigating team, which reported that he may be found guilty of acts prejudicial to the best interest of the government and of violations of several laws and regulations, and recommended that the matter be forwarded to the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission.

The employees union of the Authority formally filed an affidavit complaint before the Commission, charging Cataquiz with violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, the Administrative Code, and the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. The charges included transacting directly with fishpen operators without public bidding, approving additional fishpen areas without board approval, condoning and reducing fines without board concurrence, dismissing pending cases, disbursing funds without authority, contracting consultants without the required concurrence, and soliciting patronage for a film entry.

On December 5, 2003, the Commission recommended dismissal with accessory penalties. On December 8, 2003, Cataquiz was replaced by an officer-in-charge. The Office of the President then dismissed him from the service, and later amended its resolution to impose only the accessory penalties because the dismissal could no longer be enforced against a person already replaced.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals made an incorrect determination of the facts warranting review of its factual findings by the Supreme Court.
• Whether or not the dismissal by the Ombudsman of the charges against Cataquiz serves as a bar to the decision of the Office of the President.
• Whether or not Cataquiz can be made to suffer the accessory penalties of disqualification from re-employment in the public service and forfeiture of government retirement benefits despite his dismissal from the Authority prior to the issuance of the resolutions.
• Whether or not Cataquiz can be charged with a violation of Board Resolution Number 28 despite the clerical error of the Commission in indicating the resolution number as Number 68.

Applicable Provisions

Section 14, Article Eight of the 1987 Constitution provides:

No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.

This is the standard the Court applied in measuring the Court of Appeals decision, which it found wanting.

Section 3, paragraph e of Republic Act Number 3019 provides:

Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful: (e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.

This is the substantive charge on which the Commission found Cataquiz liable for giving undue advantage in the award of fishpens.

Section 46, paragraph b, subparagraph 27 of Executive Order Number 292 provides:

Section 46. Discipline: General Provisions. (b) The following shall be grounds for disciplinary action: (27) Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

This is the administrative ground on which the dismissal rested.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled that although findings of fact of the appellate court are generally binding, several recognized exceptions allow review, among them when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court or of the administrative body, and when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence. The Court found the Court of Appeals findings contrary to those of the Commission and the investigating team, and noted that the appellate court brushed aside the Commission results without citing any evidence. It held that the one-paragraph pronouncement that Cataquiz had authority was grossly insufficient, and that findings of administrative agencies will not be interfered with when supported by substantial evidence, which it defined as that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. On the evidence, it found substantial evidence to justify dismissal for acts prejudicial to the best interest of the government and for giving undue advantage to a private company in the award of fishpens.

On the second issue, the Court did not treat the Ombudsman resolution as a bar to the administrative decision of the Office of the President.

On the third issue, the Court upheld the accessory penalties. Because the dismissal itself was validly imposed, the accessory penalties of disqualification from re-employment and forfeiture of retirement benefits could stand with it.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the clerical error in the resolution number did not invalidate the charge, since the resolution actually applied was within the bounds of the enabling law and it was the duty of the general manager to implement it rather than disregard it.

Doctrine

First, findings of fact of administrative agencies are binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court when supported by substantial evidence, which is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. Second, the factual findings of the Court of Appeals may be reviewed under Rule 45 when they are contrary to those of the administrative body or are conclusions without citation of specific evidence. Third, every decision must express clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based, as Section 14, Article Eight of the 1987 Constitution commands. Fourth, the accessory penalty follows the principal penalty, so a validly imposed dismissal carries with it disqualification from re-employment and forfeiture of retirement benefits.

Disposition

The Court found merit in the petition and upheld the dismissal of Cataquiz together with the accessory penalties of disqualification from re-employment in the government service and forfeiture of retirement benefits.

Remember This

Memorize the line that findings of fact of administrative agencies supported by substantial evidence are binding on the Court, and that the accessory penalty follows the principal penalty. Examiners use this case on Rule 45 review of facts, on the constitutional duty to state the facts and the law in a decision, and on the relationship between principal and accessory penalties in administrative cases.