G.R. No. 177875 . August 08, 2016
ATTY. RODOLFO D. MATEO, COMPLAINANT, VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ALBERTO G. ROMULO, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Atty. Rodolfo D. Mateo, the Executive Director of the National Water Resources Board (NWRB), was administratively charged by 38 NWRB employees before the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC). The charges included dishonesty, usurpation of authority, and conduct prejudicial to the service. The primary allegation for dishonesty stemmed from Mateo’s failure to disclose in his Personal Data Sheets (PDS) dated March 12, 1997, and November 6, 2000, his prior criminal conviction for Homicide. He was convicted on August 10, 1976, and sentenced to reclusion temporal, which carries the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification from public office. Although granted a conditional pardon in 1979, the pardon did not expressly remit this accessory penalty.
The PAGC found Mateo administratively liable. It ruled that his deliberate omission in the PDS constituted dishonesty. Furthermore, it found that he had exceeded his delegated authority by approving water permit applications beyond the 0.05 liters per second limit set by the NWRB Board, constituting grave misconduct. The Office of the President affirmed the PAGC’s decision, imposing the penalty of dismissal. The Court of Appeals subsequently denied Mateo’s petition for review, prompting this appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Mateo’s dismissal from service based on findings of dishonesty and grave misconduct.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the dismissal. On the charge of dishonesty, the Court held that Mateo’s failure to disclose his final conviction for a crime punishable by reclusion temporal in his PDS was a clear act of dishonesty. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of the accessory penalty. Conviction for such a crime imposes perpetual absolute disqualification from holding public office. A conditional pardon does not automatically restore this eligibility unless it expressly remits the accessory penalty. Since Mateo’s pardon contained no such express restoration, he was ineligible for public office from the outset. His concealment of this disqualifying fact was a fraudulent act that affected his right to hold office.
Regarding grave misconduct, the Court upheld the finding that Mateo exceeded his authority. The NWRB Board’s resolution authorized him to approve applications only for 0.05 lps and below, with specific exceptions. The evidence showed he approved applications exceeding this limit, which constituted a willful transgression of established rules. Both dishonesty and grave misconduct are grave offenses under civil service rules, punishable by dismissal even for a first offense. The Court emphasized that these offenses reflect on the character and fitness of a public officer. Mateo’s arguments, including his length of service and alleged political machinations, were deemed irrelevant to the substantive legal violations established. Thus, his dismissal was proper.