Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REYNALDO A. JACINTO v. SANDIGANBAYAN OF PHILIPPINES

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 162938 2007-12-27	ALFREDO C. BUYAGAO v. HADJI FAIZAL G. KARON QUISUMBING, J.
Respondents dropped petitioner from the roll of employees in obedience to Section 2,[21] Rule XII of the Revised Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Other Personnel Actions. For acting within the purview of law, no bad faith can be ascribed to them. Neither was bad faith evident when respondents failed to immediately carry out the Order of CSC-ARMM. While the Order was executory after 15 days from receipt by respondents,[22] and the appeal did not stay execution,[23] mere delay in its implementation did not constitute evident bad faith. Evident bad faith connotes a manifest deliberate intent to do wrong or cause damage,[24] which we did not find present in this case. Even assuming that the action taken by respondents was erroneous, it was certainly not criminal in nature. [25] At most, the liability of respondents may be civil if not administrative. Section 83 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service is pertinent:Sec. 83. Non-Execution of Decision. Any officer or employee who willfully refuses or fails to implement the final resolution, decision, order or ruling of the Commission to the prejudice of the public service and the affected party, may be cited in contempt of the Commission and administratively charged with conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service or neglect of duty.
	GR No. 162938 2007-12-27	ALFREDO C. BUYAGAO v. HADJI FAIZAL G. KARON QUISUMBING, J.
After an employee, whose salary was withheld, fully received her monetary claims, there is no longer any basis for compensatory damages or undue injury, there being nothing more to compensate.[27] Moreover, in the case of Jacinto v. Sandiganbayan,[28] we held that:Nevertheless, no real or actual damage was suffered by her. She got her withheld salary released. Her name was restored in the plantilla. Thus, the complainant did not suffer undue injury as an element required by the law. Such an injury must be more than necessary, excessive, improper or illegal.[29]
	GR NO. 161877 2006-03-23	ARIEL C. SANTOS v. PEOPLE GARCIA, J.
In Jacinto vs. Sandiganbayan,[11] the Court en banc enumerated the essential elements of the crime punishable under the aforequoted statutory provision, to wit: The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions;