G.R. No. 171359 , 171755, 171776; July 18, 2012
BENJAMIN A. UMIPIG, RENATO B. PALOMO, MARGIE C. MABITAD, and CARMENCITA FONTANILLA-PAYABYAB, Petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

The National Maritime Polytechnic (NMP) Board authorized Executive Director Renato Palomo to negotiate for and acquire land in Cavite for an expansion site. Palomo negotiated with broker Glenn Solis for two parcels of land (Lots 1730-C and 1730-D). To pay a P500,000 earnest money, Palomo directed his subordinates—Administrative Officer Benjamin Umipig, Budget Officer Carmencita Fontanilla-Payabyab, and Chief Accountant Margie Mabitad—to process the disbursement. Umipig prepared a memorandum detailing eight specific legal infirmities in Solis’s supporting documents, including discrepancies in names, un-notarized authority, and lack of certified true copies. Despite these noted defects, all three subordinates signed the disbursement voucher, albeit with explicit written reservations about its legality, and Palomo approved it. This transaction formed the basis for a subsequent, separate purchase of adjacent lots.

ISSUE

Whether petitioners are guilty of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) for causing undue injury to the government or giving unwarranted benefits through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence in releasing the earnest money.

RULING

The Supreme Court ACQUITTED all petitioners. For a conviction under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 , the prosecution must prove that the accused acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. The Court found these elements absent. The subordinates (Umipig, Fontanilla-Payabyab, and Mabitad) did not act with gross negligence; they performed a positive act of due diligence by meticulously identifying the documentary defects in writing and attaching their reservations to the voucher itself. Their act of signing, while noting the irregularities, was a compelled compliance with a direct order from their superior, Palomo, and did not constitute the conscious indifference to consequences required for gross negligence. As for Palomo, while his act of approving the payment despite the noted infirmities was questionable, it did not rise to the level of evident bad faith or manifest partiality required for criminal liability. Bad faith implies a malicious intent or a conscious wrongdoing for a dishonest purpose, which was not proven. The transaction was ultimately consummated, and the titles were issued to the government, negating any allegation of undue injury. The Court emphasized that not every irregularity or error in judgment constitutes a criminal offense under the Anti-Graft Law.