REPUBLIC ACT NO.
3019 that she is not receiving a monthly salary is also of no
“Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act”
Reporter: Roi Vincent C. Perez
Submitted to: Judge Gidget Rose Duque
Q: What is the Policy behind RA 3019?
A: “Public office is a public trust.” It is the policy of the
Government to repress certain acts of public officers and
private persons alike which constitute graft and corrupt
practices or which may lead thereto. [Sec. 1, R.A. 3019]
Q: Who may be held liable under RA 3019?
A: As a general rule, public officers as well as private
persons can be held liable under the said law.
RA 3019 also expressly provided certain circumstances
where certain relatives of the President, Vice-President,
Senate President, and House Speaker, and Members of
the Congress may be held liable.
Q: Who are those persons who are considered as
public officers?
A: Public officer includes elective and appointive officials
and employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the
classified or unclassified or exempt service receiving
compensation, even nominal, from the government.
[Sec. 2(b), RA 3019]
“Government” includes:
 National Government;
 Local Governments;
 Government Owned and Controlled
Corporations;
 Government Instrumentalities; and
 Government Agencies and their branches. [Sec.
2(a), RA 3019]
“A public office is the right, authority and duty, created
and conferred by law, by which, for a given period, either
fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating
power, an individual is invested with some portion of the
sovereign functions of the government, to be exercised
by him for the benefit of the public. The individual so
invested is a public officer.” [Javier vs. First Division of
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 147026-27, 11 Sept. 2009]
“Moreover, the Court is not unmindful of the definition of
a public officer pursuant to the Anti-Graft Law, which
provides that a public officer includes elective and
appointive officials and employees, permanent or
temporary, whether in the classified or unclassified or
exempt service receiving compensation, even nominal,
from the government. Thus, pursuant to the Anti-Graft
Law, one is a public officer if one has been elected or
appointed to a public office. Petitioner was appointed by
the President to the Governing Board of the NDBD.
Though her term is only for a year that does not make
her private person exercising a public function. The fact
moment. x x x
On the other hand, the Revised Penal Code defines a
public officer as any person who, by direct provision of
the law, popular election, popular election or
appointment by competent authority, shall take part in
the performance of public functions in the Government of
the Philippine Islands, or shall perform in said
Government or in any of its branches public duties as an
employee, agent, or subordinate official, of any rank or
classes, shall be deemed to be a public officer.” [Javier
vs. First Division of Sandiganbayan, supra.]
Q: Section 3, paragraph (e) of RA 3019 states:
Sec. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. — In
addition to acts or omissions of public officers
already penalized by existing law, the following
shall constitute corrupt practices of any public
officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful.
xxx xxx xxx
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party,
including the Government, or giving any private
party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or
preference in the discharge of his official
administrative or judicial functions through
manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence. This provision shall
apply to officers and employees of offices or
government corporations charged with the grant
of licenses or permits or other concessions.
Accused Mejorada contends that, being a mere right-
of-way agent in the Office of the Highway District
Engineer, he is not charged with the duty of granting
licenses, permits or other concessions, then he is
not the officer contemplated by Section 3 (e).
Is Mejorada correct?
A: Section 3 cited above enumerates in eleven
subsections the corrupt practices of any public officers
declared unlawful. Its reference to "any public officer" is
without distinction or qualification and it specifies the
acts declared unlawful. We agree with the view adopted
by the Solicitor General that the last sentence of
paragraph (e) is intended to make clear the inclusion of
officers and employees of officers or government
corporations which, under the ordinary concept of "public
officers" may not come within the term. It is a strained
construction of the provision to read it as applying
exclusively to public officers charged with the duty of
granting licenses or permits or other concessions.
[Mejorada vs. Sandiganbayan and People, G.R. No. L-
51065-72, 30 June 1987]
Q: What are unlawful practices as defined under RA corporations charged with the grant of licenses
3019? or permits or other concessions.

A: Sec. 3 of the RA 3019 enumerated the corrupt “Violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019
practices of public officers, to wit: requires that there be injury caused by
giving unwarranted benefits,
(a) Persuading, inducing or influencing another advantages or preferences to private
public officer to perform: parties who conspire with public officers.
 an act constituting a violation of rules and
regulations duly promulgated by competent Its elements are:
authority or (1) that the accused are public officers
 an offense in connection with the official or private persons charged in
duties of the latter, or allowing himself to be conspiracy with them;
persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit (2) that said public officers commit the
such violation or offense. prohibited acts during the performance
of their official duties or in relation to
(b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any their public positions;
gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit, for (3) that they caused undue injury to any
himself or for any other person, in connection party, whether the Government or a
with any contract or transaction between the private party;
Government and any other party, wherein the (4) that such injury is caused by giving
public officer in his official capacity has to unwarranted benefits, advantage or
Intervene under the law. preference to such parties; and
(5) that the public officers have acted
We have consistently held that so long with manifest partiality, evident bad faith
as substantial evidence supports the or gross inexcusable negligence.”
Ombudsman's ruling, his decision [PCGG vs Office of the Ombudsman,
should stand. In a criminal proceeding G.R. No. 193176. 24 Feb. 2016]
before the Ombudsman, the
Ombudsman merely determines In Montilla v. Hilario, the Court
whether probable cause exists, i.e., described the "offense committed in
whether there is a sufficient ground to relation to the office"
engender a well-founded belief that a
crime has been committed and that the the relation has to be such that,
respondent is probably guilty thereof. in the legal sense, the offense
[Casing vs Ombudsman, G.R. No. cannot exist without the office.
192334, 13 June 2012] In other words, the office must
be a constituent element of the
(c) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any crime as defined in the statute,
gift, present or other pecuniary or material xxx
benefit, for himself or for another, from any
person for whom the public officer, in any the use or abuse of office does
manner or capacity, has secured or obtained, or not adhere to the crime as an
will secure or obtain, any Government permit or element; and even as an
license, in consideration for the help given or to aggravating circumstance; its
be given, without prejudice to Section thirteen of materiality arises not from the
this Act. allegations but on the proof,
not from the fact that the
(d) Accepting or having any member of his family criminals are public officials
accept employment in a private enterprise which but from the manner of the
has pending official business with him during the commission of the crime.
pendency thereof or within one year after its [Consigna vs Hon.
termination. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
175750-51, 02 April 2014]
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including
the Government, or giving any private party any
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019 has the
in the discharge of his official administrative or following essential elements:
judicial functions through manifest partiality, (a) the accused must be a public officer
evident bad faith or gross inexcusable discharging administrative, judicial or
negligence. This provision shall apply to officers official functions;
and employees of offices or government
(b) he must have acted with manifest
partiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence; and
(c) his action caused any undue injury to
any party, including the government, or
gave any private party unwarranted
benefits, advantage or preference in the
discharge of his functions.
The second element of Section 3 (e) of
R.A. No. 3019 may be committed in
three ways, that is, through manifest
partiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence. Proof of any
of these three in connection with the
prohibited acts mentioned in Section 3
(e) of R.A. No. 3019 is enough to
convict.
"Partiality" is synonymous with "bias"
which "excites a disposition to see and
report matters as they are wished for
rather than as they are."
"Bad faith does not simply connote bad
judgment or negligence; it imputes a
dishonest purpose or some moral
obliquity and conscious doing of a
wrong; a breach of sworn duty through
some motive or intent or ill will; it
partakes of the nature of fraud."
"Gross negligence has been so
defined as negligence characterized by
the want of even slight care, acting or
omitting to act in a situation where there
is a duty to act, not inadvertently but
wilfully and intentionally with a
conscious indifference to consequences
in so far as other persons may be
affected. It is the omission of that care
which even inattentive and thoughtless
men never fail to take on their own
property." [Coloma vs Sandiganbayan
and People, G.R. No.205561, 24 Sept.
2014]
“It bears stressing that the offense
defined under Section 3 (e) of R.A. No.
3019 may be committed even if bad
faith is not attendant. Thus, even
assuming that petitioner did not act in
bad faith, his negligence under the
circumstances was not only gross but
also inexcusable.” [Alvarez vs People,
G.R. No. 192591, 30 July 2012]
“The use of the three phrases "manifest
partiality," "evident bad faith" and "gross
inexcusable negligence" in the same
information does not mean that the
indictment charges three distinct
offenses but only implies that the
offense charged may have been
committed through any of the modes
provided by the law.” [Fonacier vs Hon.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. L-50691, 05
Dec. 1994]
In a catena of cases, the Court has held
that there are two ways by which a
public official violates Section 3 (e) of
R.A. No. 3019 in the performance of his
functions, namely:
(1) by causing undue injury to any party,
including the Government; or
(2) by giving any private party any
unwarranted benefit, advantage or
preference; the presence of one would
suffice for conviction.
[Coloma vs Sandiganbayan and People,
G.R. No.205561, 24 Sept. 2014]
(f) Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or
request, without sufficient justification, to act
within a reasonable time on any matter pending
before him for the purpose of obtaining, directly
or indirectly, from any person interested in the
matter some pecuniary or material benefit or
advantage, or for the purpose of favoring his
own interest or giving undue advantage in favor
of or discriminating against any other interested
party.
(g) Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any
contract or transaction manifestly and grossly
disadvantageous to the same, whether or not
the public officer profited or will profit thereby.
“On the other hand, Section 3 (g) of RA
3019 does not require the giving of
unwarranted benefits, advantages or
preferences to private parties who
conspire with public officers, its core
element being the engagement in a
transaction or contract that is grossly
and manifestly disadvantageous to the
government.
The elements of the offense are:
(1) that the accused is a public officer;
(2) that he entered into a contract or
transaction on behalf of the
government; and
(3) that such contract or transaction is
grossly and manifestly
disadvantageous to the
government.” [PCGG vs Office of
the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 193176.
24 Feb. 2016]
(h) Directly or indirectly having financial or
pecuniary interest in any business, contract or
 transaction in connection with which he
intervenes or takes part in his official capacity, or
in which he is prohibited by the Constitution or
by any law from having any interest.
"What is contemplated in Section 3(h) of
the anti-graft law is the actual
intervention in the transaction in which
one has financial or pecuniary interest in
order that liability may attach. The
official need not dispose his shares
in the corporation as long as he does
not do anything for the firm in its
contract with the office. For the law
aims to prevent the dominant use of
influence, authority and power.
"There is absolutely no evidence that
petitioner had, in his capacity as Mayor,
used his influence, power, and authority
in having the transactions given to
Trigen. He didn't ask anyone — neither
Treasurer Vega nor Secretary Maravilla
for that matter, to get the construction
materials from Trigen. [Trieste, Sr. vs
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 70332-43, 13
Nov. 1986]
(i) Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for
personal gain, or having a material interest in
any transaction or act requiring the approval of a
board, panel or group of which he is a member,
and which exercises discretion in such approval,
even if he votes against the same or does not
participate in the action of the board, committee,
panel or group.
Interest for personal gain shall be presumed
against those public officers responsible for the
approval of manifestly unlawful, inequitable, or
irregular transactions or acts by the board, panel
or group to which they belong.
(j) Knowingly approving or granting any license,
permit, privilege or benefit in favor of any person
not qualified for or not legally entitled to such
license, permit, privilege or advantage, or of a
mere representative or dummy of one who is not
so qualified or entitled.
(k) Divulging valuable information of a confidential
character, acquired by his office or by him on
account of his official position to unauthorized
persons, or releasing such information in
advance of its authorized release date.
The person giving the gift, present, share, percentage or
benefit referred to in subparagraphs (b) and (c); or
offering or giving to the public officer the employment
mentioned in subparagraph (d); or urging the divulging or
untimely release of the confidential information referred
to in subparagraph (k) of this section shall, together with
the offending public officer, be punished under Section
nine of this Act and shall be permanently or temporarily
disqualified in the discretion of the Court, from
transacting business in any form with the Government.
Under Sec. 6 of the same law, it is unlawful for any
public officer to recommend the initiation in Congress of
the enactment or adoption of any law or resolution, and
acquires or receives any personal pecuniary interest
during his incumbency. It is also unlawful for such public
officer, who, having such interest prior to the approval of
such law or resolution recommended by him, continues
for thirty days after such approval to retain such interest.
Further, unexplained wealth may be a ground for
dismissal under Sec. 8 of the same law. If in accordance
with Republic Act No. 1379, otherwise known as “An Act
Declaring Forfeiture In Favor Of The State Any Property
Found To Have Been Unlawfully Acquired By Any Public
Officer Or Employee And Providing For The
Proceedings Therefor,” a public official has been found
to have acquired during his incumbency, whether in his
name or in the name of other persons, an amount of
property and/or money manifestly out of proportion to his
salary and to his other lawful income, that fact shall be a
ground for dismissal or removal.
Under the law, unexplained wealth includes:
1. Property unlawfully acquired by the respondent,
but its ownership is concealed by its being
recorded in the name of, or held by, the
respondent’s spouse, ascendants, descendants,
relatives, or any other person.
2. Property unlawfully acquired by the respondent,
but transferred by him to another person or
persons on or after the effectivity of this Act.
3. Property donated to the respondent during his
incumbency, unless he can prove to the
satisfaction of the court that the donation is
lawful. [Sec. 1(b), R.A. No. 1379]
Penalty: Imprisonment for not less than one year nor
more than ten years, perpetual disqualification from
public office, and confiscation or forfeiture in favor of the
Government of any prohibited interest and unexplained
wealth. [Sec. 9, R.A. No. 3019]
Q: The Ombudsman charged the local officials of
Anahawan, Southern Leyte Mayor Antonio De Jesus,
Sr., Vice Mayor Anatolio Ang and Treasurer Martina
Apigo of Falsification of Public Document before the
Sandiganbayan and together with Antonio De Jesus,
Jr., the Mayor’s son, of violation of RA 3019 before
the same court.
The first information alleged that the accused local
officials falsified the Requests for Quotation and
Abstract of Proposal of Canvass, making it appear
that Cuad Lumber and Hinundayan Lumber
submitted quotations when they did not do so; while
the second information alleged that the municipal
officers gave unwarranted advantage to the De
Jesus, Jr., by awarding to him the supply of coco
lumber worth Php 16,767.00.
The Sandiganbayan rendered judgment, convicting
the accused local officials of the crimes charged.
On appeal, the local officials contended that
Sandiganbayan erred in finding the accused local
officials guilty of the two crimes charged when these
referred to only one transaction. Is their contention
correct?
A: No. The accused municipal mayor, vice-mayor, and
treasurer point out that, since the two charges involved
only one transaction, the Sandiganbayan made a
mistake in finding them guilty of both. But, as the
Sandiganbayan and the prosecution point out, Section 3
of R.A. 3019 expressly allows the filing of the two
charges based on one transaction. Section 3 provides
that the crimes described in it are "in addition to acts or
omissions of public officials already penalized by existing
laws." [De Jesus, Sr. vs Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
182539-40, 23 Feb.2011]
Q: Petitioner Apelado, Provincial Warden of Eastern
Samar, was charged before the Sandiganbayan of
violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019, due to the
alleged transfer of then Mayor Francisco Adalim, an
accused in a criminal case, from the provincial jail to
the residence of Governor Ruperto Ambil for a
period of Eighty-Five (85) days, more or less which
act was done without any court order.
Apelado contended that Section 2 (b) of R.A. No.
3019 defines a "public officer" to include elective
and appointive officials and employees, permanent
or temporary, whether in the classified or
unclassified or exemption service receiving
compensation, even nominal from the government.
Evidently, Adalim, as Mayor, is a public officer.
However, considering that Section 3 (e) of R.A. No.
3019 punishes the giving by a public officer of
unwarranted benefits to a private party, does the fact
that Mayor Adalim, a public officer, was the recipient
of such benefits take petitioners' case beyond the
ambit of said law?
A: In drafting the Anti-Graft Law, the lawmakers opted to
use "private party" rather than "private person" to
describe the recipient of the unwarranted benefits,
advantage or preference for a reason. The term "party"
is a technical word having a precise meaning in legal
parlance as distinguished from "person" which, in
general usage, refers to a human being. Thus, a private
person simply pertains to one who is not a public officer.
While a private party is more comprehensive in scope to
mean either a private person or a public officer acting in
a private capacity to protect his personal interest.
In the present case, when petitioners transferred Mayor
Adalim from the provincial jail and detained him at
petitioner Ambil, Jr.'s residence, they accorded such
privilege to Adalim, not in his official capacity as a
mayor, but as a detainee charged with murder. Thus, for
purposes of applying the provisions of Section 3 (e), R.A.
No. 3019, Adalim was a private party. [Ambil, Jr. vs
Sandiganbayan and People, G.R. no. 175457, 06 July
2011]
Q: Velasco and Dellova filed a complaint with the
Office of the Ombudsman charging Casing with
violation of RA No. 3019. The Ombudsman found
probable cause against the petitioner for violation of
Section 3 (b), R.A. No. 3019, stating that he indirectly
demanded and received a share from the salary of
complainants, as a consideration for having
successfully employed the latter; that he had
capacity to intervene through the exercise of his
recommendatory powers for the hiring or
employment of the respondents.
Casing challenged the Ombudsman finding of
probable cause, alleging that violation of Sec. 3(b) of
R.A. No. 3019 should be proved by clear and
convincing evidence.
Is Casing correct?
A: No. We have consistently held that so long as
substantial evidence supports the Ombudsman's ruling,
his decision should stand. In a criminal proceeding
before the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman merely
determines whether probable cause exists, i.e., whether
there is a sufficient ground to engender a well-founded
belief that a crime has been committed and that the
respondent is probably guilty thereof.
In the present case, the Ombudsman's finding of
probable cause for violation of Section 3 (b) of R.A. No.
3019 against the petitioner is supported by substantial
evidence. First, the petitioner himself recommended the
non-renewal of the complainants' contractual
employment; and second, the petitioner is the head of
the Task Force where the complainants were previously
employed. [Casing vs Hon. Ombudsman, G.R. No.
192334, 13 June 2012]
Q: What are the prohibited acts for private
individuals as defined under R.A. 3019?
A:
(1) To capitalize or exploit or take advantage of
family or close personal relation by directly or
indirectly requesting or receiving any present,
gift or material or pecuniary advantage from any
other person having some business, transaction,
application, request or contract with the
government, in which such public official has to
intervene.

“Family relation” shall include:
 Spouse; or
 relatives by consanguinity or affinity in
the third civil degree.
"Close personal relation" shall include close
personal friendship, social and fraternal
connections, and professional employment all
giving rise to intimacy which assures free access
to such public officer. [Sec. 4(a), R.A. No. 3019]
(2) To induce or cause any public official to commit
any of the offenses defined in Section 3 of R.A.
3019. [Sec. 4(b), R.A. No. 3019]
Penalty: Imprisonment for not less than one year nor
more than ten years, perpetual disqualification from
public office, and confiscation or forfeiture in favor of the
Government of any prohibited interest and unexplained
wealth. [Sec. 9, R.A. No. 3019]
Q: May a private person be held liable for offenses
under Sec. 3 of R.A. 3019?
A: Yes. Private persons, when acting in conspiracy with
public officers, may be indicted and, if found guilty, held
liable for the pertinent offenses under Section 3 of R.A.
3019, in consonance with the avowed policy of the anti-
graft law to repress certain acts of public officers and
private persons alike constituting graft or corrupt
practices act or which may lead thereto. [People vs
Henry T. Go, G.R. No. 168539, 25 March 2014, En Banc
Decision]
Q: May a private person be indicted for conspiracy in
violation Sec. 3 of R.A. 3019, if the public officer,
with whom he was alleged to have conspired, has
died prior to the filing of the Information?
A: Yes. The only thing extinguished by the death of
Secretary Enrile is his criminal liability. His death did not
extinguish the crime nor did it remove the basis of the
charge of conspiracy between him and private
respondent. Stated differently, the death of Secretary
Enrile does not mean that there was no public officer
who allegedly violated Section 3 (g) of R.A. 3019.
The requirement before a private person may be indicted
for violation of Section 3 (g) of R.A. 3019, among others,
is that such private person must be alleged to have
acted in conspiracy with a public officer. The law,
however, does not require that such person must, in all
instances, be indicted together with the public officer. If
circumstances exist where the public officer may no
longer be charged in court, as in the present case where
the public officer has already died, the private person
may be indicted alone. [People vs Henry T. Go, G.R. No.
168539, 25 March 2014]
Q: What are prohibited acts for Members of
Congress as defined under R.A. 3019?
A:
(1) It shall be unlawful for any Member of the
Congress during the term for which he has been
elected, to acquire or receive any personal
pecuniary interest in any specific business
enterprise which will be directly and particularly
favored or benefited by any law or resolution
authored by him previously approved or adopted
by the Congress during the same term.
(2) It shall likewise be unlawful for such member of
Congress who, having such interest prior to the
approval of such law or resolution authored or
recommended by him, continues for thirty days
after such approval to retain such interest. [Sec.
6, R.A. No. 3019]
Q: Offenses under R.A. 3019 are within the
jurisdiction of what court?
A: Presently, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over
the following:
Sec. 4. Jurisdiction. — The Sandiganbayan shall
exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all
cases involving:
A. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as
amended, other known as the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379,
and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the
Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the
accused are officials occupying the following
positions in the government, whether in a
permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time
of the commission of the offense:
(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying
the positions of regional director and higher,
otherwise classified as Grade "27" and higher,
of the Compensation and Position Classification
Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically
including: xxx xxx xxx
(2) Members of Congress and officials thereof
classified as Grade "Grade '27'" and up under
the Compensation and Position Classification
Act of 1989;
(3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to
the provisions of the Constitution;
(4) Chairmen and members of Constitutional
Commission, without prejudice to the provisions
of the Constitution; and
(5) All other national and local officials classified
as Grade "Grade '27'" and higher under the
 Compensation and Position Classification Act of
1989. [Javier vs. First Division of
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 147026-27, 11 Sept.
2009]

Q: What if a public officer, committed unlawful acts

under R.A. 3019, but has a salary grade of below 27;
what court or courts shall exercise jurisdiction?

A: In this instance, the RTC or the MTC shall exercise

original jurisdiction depending on the imposable penalty,
the Sandiganbayan shall then may exercise appellate
jurisdiction over the judgement of the RTC in these
cases whether rendered exercise original or appellate
jurisdiction.

Q: What is period of prescription for offenses under

R.A. 3019?

A: Under the R.A. No. 10910, the prescriptive period for

violations of R.A. No. 3019 has been increased to twenty
(20) years.

Q; Discuss the preventive suspension under R.A.

3019.

A: The requirements in preventive suspension under

R.A. 3019 are: (1) that the accused should have been
afforded a preliminary investigation prior to the filling of
the information against him; (2) that the acts for which he
was charged constitute a violation of the provisions of
R.A. 3019; and (3) that there must be a valid information
or complaint.

The preliminary investigation for public officers shall be

conducted by the Ombudsman. He is acting as the
preliminary investigator in criminal cases involving public
officers leading to filing of the information if he finds
probable cause. Upon filing of the information, and after
the court determines that there is indeed probable cause
through the pre-suspension hearing, under RA 3019, the
court, depending on the salary grade of the public officer,
will now order the preventive suspension. [Socrates vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 116259-60, 20 Feb. 1996]

In the case of Gonzaga vs Sandiganbayan, it was held

that preventive suspension under Section 13, R.A. 3019
as amended shall be limited to a maximum period of
ninety (90) days, from issuance thereof, and this applies
to all public officers who are validly charged under said
Act.

Should the public officer be convicted by final judgment,

he shall lose all retirement or gratuity benefits under any
law, but if he is acquitted, he shall be entitled to
reinstatement and to the salaries and benefits which he
failed to receive during suspension, unless in the
meantime administrative proceedings have been filed
against him. [Sec. 13, R.A. No. 3019]