SAYCON v.
CA and ROEL DEGAMO
G.R. No. 238822, OCTOBER 9, 2019
FACTS:
Melliemoore Saycon (Petitioner) filed an administrative complaint against Roel Degamo (PR) and several other public
officers in the Province of Negros Oriental alleging that the PR and his co-respondents caused the release of public
funds without the corresponding appropriation in the budget.
The subject disbursed funds pertained to the “Intelligence Expenses” item which was not originally included in the
approved budget for the Fiscal Year 2013. PR vetoed the "deletion or non-inclusion" of the item on "Intelligence
Expenses" while the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, for its part, did not override the veto.
Despite the absence of an appropriation, PR allegedly proceeded to issue a directive to the Provincial Budget Officer,
Provincial Treasurer and Provincial Accountant for the release of P10M representing the Intelligence Expenses. The
said officers complied, but later on registered their objection to the disbursement of funds.
The DBM Regional Office VII Director, through a letter informed the Sangguniang Panlalawigan that the appropriation
of P10,000,000.00 for Gender and Development is inoperative because it was vetoed and the veto was not
overridden. Furthermore, the DBM Regional Office VII Director stated that Roel's veto on the Intelligence Fund
cannot operate to re-enact the item in the appropriations ordinance.
The OMB resolved to dismiss the complaint against the co-respondents of PR but found substantial evidence to hold
PR liable for Grave Misconduct and imposed upon him the penalty of dismissal from service with accessory penalties
of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification from holding public office and
bar from taking civil service examination.
PR filed a petition for Review before the CA and also for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and
subsequently for the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction (WPI), which were all granted by the CA.
The CA reasoned that PR successfully established his entitlement to the injunctive relief. The release of the subject
funds occurred in 2013, during the first term of Roel as governor. Considering that he was elected for another term
during the 2013 elections, the CA held that the condonation doctrine should have been applied.
Hence, the present petition
ISSUE:
WON the CA gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in enjoining the OMB from
implementing the decision dismissing Roel from government service?
RULING:
Yes. The Court ruled that the CA gravely abused its discretion when it issued the WPI in favor of private
respondent.
For an injunctive relief to issue, there must be a showing that the applicant is entitled to the relief being
demanded.
The Court laid down the essential requisites of a writ of preliminary injunction in the case of City Government
of Butuan, et.al. v. Consolidated Broadcasting System, Inc., et. al.
The conditions for the issuance of the injunctive writ are:
that the right to be protected exists prima facie;
that the act sought to be enjoined is violative of that right; and
that there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the issuance of the writ to prevent serious damage.
The SC explained that as with all equitable remedies, injunction must be issued only at the instance of a
party who possess sufficient interest in or title to the right or the property sought to be protected. It is proper
only when the applicant appears to be entitled to the relief demanded in the complaint, which must aver the
existence of the right and the violation of the right, or whose averments must in the minimum constitute
prima facie showing of a right to final relief sought.
In applying for the issuance of a WPI, it was incumbent upon PR to show first that he has a right clearly
founded on or granted by law. In this case, there is no vested or absolute right in public office. The
Constitution provides that public office is a public trust. As such, public office cannot be considered a
property right.
More importantly, the enforcement of the OMB’s decision would not result to an irreparable and grave injury
to PR. Neither is there any urgent necessity for the issuance of an injunctive writ in order to prevent serious
damage to Roel as a public officer.
This is because a respondent in an administrative case, who is meted with the penalty of dismissal from the
service, is considered under preventive suspension in the event that an appeal is made, and that appeal
becomes successful. The respondent is also entitled to receive the salary and other emoluments not
received by reason of the removal.
Thus, the SC granted the petition for certiorari
