G.R. No. 162938; December 27, 2007
ALFREDO C. BUYAGAO, Petitioner, vs. HADJI FAIZAL G. KARON, NORMA PASANDALAN, TAYA CANDAO AND VIRGILIO TORRES, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Alfredo C. Buyagao, an Engineer IV, was dropped from the rolls by the DENR-ARMM for incurring 115 days of absence without official leave. The Civil Service Commission in Mindanao (CSC-ARMM) declared this action null and void and ordered his reinstatement and payment of salaries. The DENR-ARMM, through respondents, appealed this order to the CSC Proper and did not immediately reinstate Buyagao. Consequently, Buyagao filed a graft case under Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 against the respondents for alleged evident bad faith and for causing him undue injury by withholding his salaries and defying the CSC-ARMM order.
While the graft case was pending, the CSC Proper ultimately granted the respondents’ appeal and affirmed the legality of dropping Buyagao from the rolls. The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), in deference to this final CSC ruling, filed a Motion to Withdraw the Information in the Sandiganbayan, which was granted. Buyagao’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

The core issues are: (1) whether respondents acted with evident bad faith in dropping Buyagao from the rolls, and (2) whether their failure to immediately execute the CSC-ARMM order caused him undue injury sufficient to constitute a violation of the Anti-Graft Law.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s dismissal of the case. On the first issue, the Court found no evident bad faith. Bad faith implies a dishonest purpose or moral obliquity, and it must be proven as a fact. The respondents’ act of dropping Buyagao was based on a valid ground—prolonged absence without leave—as authorized by civil service rules. Their subsequent appeal of the CSC-ARMM order was a legitimate exercise of a legal remedy, not an act of defiance. The eventual affirmation of their action by the CSC Proper demonstrated that their position was legally tenable, negating any imputation of dishonest intent or conscious wrongdoing.
On the second issue, the Court ruled that no undue injury was sustained to warrant a graft violation. For injury to be “undue,” it must be more than the necessary consequence of a lawful act. The non-payment of salaries during the pendency of the appeal was a direct result of the unresolved administrative dispute. Crucially, the final and authoritative ruling from the CSC Proper validated the respondents’ initial action, meaning Buyagao was not unlawfully deprived of his position. Any perceived injury was extinguished when the CSC Proper ruled in the respondents’ favor, as this established that Buyagao had no clear right to the salaries or reinstatement during the appeal period. Therefore, the elements of the crime under Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 were not established.