G.R. No. 183445 ; September 14, 2011.
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT and PRESIDENTIAL ANTI-GRAFT COMMISSION, Petitioners, vs. CALIXTO R. CATAQUIZ, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Calixto R. Cataquiz was appointed General Manager of the Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) on April 16, 2001. On April 1, 2003, a majority of LLDA’s Management Committee and rank-and-file employees submitted a Petition for his ouster to the DENR Secretary on grounds of corrupt and unprofessional behavior and management incompetence. An investigating team was formed, which submitted a Report dated May 21, 2003, finding prima facie evidence against Cataquiz and recommending the case be forwarded to the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC) for investigation. The DENR Secretary, in a Memorandum dated May 23, 2003, recommended to the President that Cataquiz be relieved and investigated by PAGC. The Concerned Employees of the LLDA (CELLDA) later filed a formal Affidavit Complaint before PAGC on September 5, 2003, charging Cataquiz with violations of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), E.O. No. 292 (Administrative Code), and R.A. No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards). The charges included, among others: transacting directly with fishpen operators without board approval; approving additional fishpen areas without board approval and in violation of the zoning plan; condoning fines without board concurrence; dismissing cases without proper authority; unauthorized disbursements; contracting consultants without COA concurrence; unauthorized gifts; allowing a company to use LLDA facilities without a contract; unauthorized direct procurement; soliciting patronage for a private entity; and failure to act promptly on official documents.
On December 5, 2003, PAGC issued a Resolution recommending to the President the penalty of dismissal from service with accessory penalties. On December 8, 2003, Cataquiz was replaced as General Manager. The Office of the President (OP), in a Decision dated June 29, 2004, adopted PAGC’s findings and dismissed Cataquiz from service. Cataquiz filed a Motion for Reconsideration and/or for New Trial. The OP issued an Amended Resolution on February 10, 2005, imposing only the accessory penalties of disqualification from re-employment and forfeiture of retirement benefits, noting the penalty of dismissal was no longer applicable due to his prior replacement. Cataquiz elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in its Decision dated January 31, 2008, reversed the OP’s Amended Resolution, ruling that the accessory penalties could not be imposed since the principal penalty of dismissal was not enforced, and finding some charges baseless or within Cataquiz’s authority. The OP and PAGC filed the present petition for review.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the Office of the President’s Amended Resolution which imposed the accessory penalties of disqualification from re-employment and forfeiture of retirement benefits on respondent Cataquiz after finding him administratively liable, notwithstanding his prior replacement from office.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the accessory penalties of disqualification from re-employment in the government service and forfeiture of retirement benefits cannot be imposed independently. These penalties are accessory to the principal penalty of dismissal from the service. Since Cataquiz was no longer in office when the OP issued its Amended Resolution (having been replaced on December 8, 2003), the principal penalty of dismissal could no longer be implemented. Consequently, the accessory penalties, which follow the principal penalty, could not be imposed. The Court cited the rule that an accessory penalty is dependent on the imposition of the principal penalty. Furthermore, the Court found that the charges related to violations of certain LLDA Board Resolutions were not substantiated, as one resolution (Board Resolution No. 68) was inapplicable to the acts complained of, and another (Board Resolution No. 28) was an invalid basis for administrative liability as it was not approved by the President as required by the LLDA’s charter. The Court also noted that many of the acts charged appeared to be within the general manager’s authority. Thus, the CA correctly set aside the OP’s Amended Resolution.