G.R. Nos. 168951 & 169000, July 17, 2013
Dr. Roger R. Posadas and Dr. Rolando P. Dayco vs. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines

FACTS

Petitioners Dr. Roger Posadas, then Chancellor of UP Diliman, and Dr. Rolando Dayco, then Vice-Chancellor for Administrative Affairs, were convicted by the Sandiganbayan for violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and Section 7(b) of R.A. No. 6713. The charges stemmed from the UP Technology Management Center (TMC) project, funded by a Canadian grant. While on an official trip abroad, Posadas designated Dayco as Officer-in-Charge (OIC). In that capacity, Dayco subsequently appointed Posadas as Project Director and Consultant for the TMC project, from which Posadas received monthly honoraria and consultancy fees.
The Commission on Audit (COA) disallowed these payments, citing several grounds: the honoraria rates exceeded authorized limits, the OIC’s appointment of the sitting Chancellor was legally infirm, and the collection of dual remunerations constituted prohibited double compensation. Petitioners argued that the fees were legitimate consultancy payments exempt from compensation rules and that the appointments were valid under UP’s autonomous charter.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan correctly convicted petitioners for violating anti-graft and ethical standards laws based on the irregular appointments and disbursements related to the TMC project.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s conviction. The legal logic centered on the illegality of the appointments and the consequent unauthorized compensation. First, the Court found that Dayco, as a mere OIC, had no authority to appoint Posadas. An OIC only exercises temporary, delegated powers and cannot perform a discretionary act like appointment, especially of the very official he is temporarily replacing. This rendered Posadas’s designation as Project Director void.
Second, since the appointment was invalid, all compensation Posadas received pursuant to that appointment was likewise illegal. The Court rejected the defense that the payments were exempt consultancy fees, ruling that the nature of the services rendered was integral to his official duties as Chancellor, not external consultancy. Consequently, receiving these payments on top of his regular salary constituted unlawful double compensation. The Court held that these acts—entering into a contract through a void appointment and receiving unauthorized public funds—caused undue injury to the government and constituted gross negligence and manifest partiality, satisfying the elements of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.