POSADAS, DAYCO vs SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS:
- Posadas was Chancellor of UPD; Dayco the Vice-Chancellor
- UP established the Technology Management Center
> Posadas worked for the funding 10 new graduate courses for the TMC project

- Posadas assigned Dayco as OIC

> Dayco, on his last day as OIC, appointed Posadas as Project Director and Consultant of
TMC

- COA Resident Auditor issued notice of suspension of payments made to UP TMC Personnel
> including Posadas for his services as consultant; and later suspended honorarium
payments made to Posadas, this time as Project Director

- UPD Legal Office issued a memorandum to the auditor that such payments were legal
> in the nature of consultancy fees
> they also confirmed Dayco’s authority as OIC to appoint Posadas as
director/consultant

- UP president Javier constituted an administrative disciplinary tribunal

> to hear and decide his complaint against Posadas and Dayco
> for grave misconduct and abuse of authority

- The tribunal recommended

> the dismissal, but later on modified it to forced resignation
> with right to reapply after 1 year provided they publicly apologize

- The sandiganbayan found petitioners guilty of violating both RA 3019 and RA 6713
> were also made to indemnify the government the sum of P336,000

Issues:
- WON Posadas was validly appointed as consultant
- WON petitioners caused “undue injury” to the government

Ruling:
- Yes. The appointment was made in good faith; It did not invite any protest from those who
could have had interest in the positions
> COA Resident author actually lifted the suspension after being assured by the UP Legal
Office that such transactions were legal
> Posadas was most qualified for the work; there was no manifest impartiality in his
appointment; since no evidence was presented that others were more qualified

- No. Prosecution did not prove undue injury. The payments made to Posadas did not cause
actual injury to the government;

- SC grants MR of petitioners and vacates their conviction for failure to prove their guilt beyond
reasonable doubt

Notes:
Manifest Impartiality: present when there is clear and notorious inclination to favor one side

Undue Injury: actual damage that is capable of proof provided with reasonable degree of certainty