G.R. No. 183141 ; September 18, 2009
EDGARDO H. CATINDIG, petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and ATTY. DANIEL P. FANDIÑO, JR., Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Edgardo Catindig, a Sangguniang Pambayan member, filed a complaint before the Ombudsman against private respondent Atty. Daniel Fandiño, Jr., Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Calamba Water District (CWD), and other board members. The complaint was based on a Commission on Audit (COA) report which found that the CWD Board passed resolutions granting themselves and CWD officers various benefits and allowances totaling approximately ₱15.4 million from 1993-2001. The COA held these grants were without legal basis, noting that Presidential Decree No. 198, as amended, limits directors to receiving only per diems for meetings attended, with no other compensation allowed. The Ombudsman found probable cause and filed two Informations for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
The RTC, in Criminal Case No. 13850-05-C, issued an order directing the issuance of warrants of arrest and suspending the accused pendente lite from their positions for 60 days pursuant to Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019 . The Court of Appeals (CA) annulled the RTC’s orders. The CA ruled that the suspension order was issued with grave abuse of discretion, prompting Catindig to elevate the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in annulling the RTC’s orders for the issuance of warrants of arrest and the suspension pendente lite of the accused.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the suspension order. A suspension pendente lite under Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019 is mandatory only if the accused is charged with an offense under that law in a valid information. The legal logic requires the court to examine the information itself to determine if it validly charges an offense under R.A. No. 3019 . In this case, the Information alleged the accused, as CWD board members, granted excessive benefits through “manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.” However, the Court found that the acts complained of—granting benefits allegedly beyond what is authorized by P.D. No. 198—did not constitute a violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft Law. The elements of causing undue injury or giving unwarranted benefits were not sufficiently alleged. The Information essentially alleged a violation of P.D. No. 198, not R.A. No. 3019 . Since the Information did not charge a valid offense under the graft law, the mandatory legal basis for suspension pendente lite was absent. Consequently, the RTC had no authority to order the suspension, and the CA correctly annulled the orders.