Former University of the Philippines Professors Found Guilty of Graft

First posted 10:36pm (Manila time) June 30, 2005
By Nelson Flores
Inquirer News Service


THE SANDIGANBAYAN sentenced to 17 years imprisonment early this week two former University of the Philippines officials after finding them guilty of graft and unethical conduct.

Found "guilty beyond reasonable doubt" of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and Section 7(b) of RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) were former UP Diliman Chancellor and faculty member Roger Posadas, and Vice-Chancellor and Officer-in-Charge of the Office of the Chancellor Rolando Dayco.

The 23-page decision, penned by Fourth Division Associate Justice Jose Hernandez, also "perpetually disqualified" Posadas and Dayco from holding public office. The accused were also directed to "jointly and severally indemnify" the government in the amount of P336,000.

Other members of the fourth division, Justices Gregory Ong, chair, and Rodolfo Ponferrada, concurred with Hernandez's decision.

Posadas and Dayco were charged before the Office of the Ombudsman by University of the Philippines general-counsel Carmelita Yadao-Guno on behalf of the university. Finding probable cause, the Ombudsman submitted the cases to the Sandiganbayan.

Court records showed that on or about Nov. 7, 1995, Dayco was appointed OIC chancellor by Posadas, who was to go on leave. Upon his appointment, Dayco selected Posadas as project director of Institutionalization of the Management of Technology at the Technology Management Center of the Office of the Chancellor in UP Diliman.

For the 12-month project, Posadas received a monthly salary of P30,000, while continuing to receive his salary as chancellor and faculty member. It was alleged that both officials knew Dayco could not make the appointment as he was only the OIC.

The records further showed that Posadas also engaged in unauthorized private practice when Dayco appointed him as consultant of the project for an additional P100,000 consultancy fee.

The Inquirer tried, but failed, to get a reaction from Posadas and Dayco.

In its decision, the antigraft court said, "There is evidence... to support the finding that there is... bad faith on the part of both accused. Being the highest officials of UP Diliman, they knew very well the limitations of Dayco's authority as OIC chancellor."

The court noted, "Posadas' authority to appoint directors and consultants is merely a delegated authority to the chancellor, which he used to occupy during the material dates alleged in the information.

"This authority was delegated to him by the Board of Regents of the UP System. Being a delegated authority, he could not validly delegate it to the accused, Dayco," the court said.

The court dismissed the contention of Posadas and Dayco that their acts were not disadvantageous to the government since the pay they received did not come from the government but from the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), a foreign funding agency.

The court said while it was true that funding for the project originally came from the CIDA, the money was received by the UP and, thus, was in its custody and control. From then onwards, "they ceased to be private funds."

As for Posadas' engaging in unauthorized private practice, the court said, "There is nothing in the records to show that he had prior permission to engage in the private practice of his profession."

It added, "Dayco, as OIC, did not possess the power to appoint employees, including Posadas."

On the charge that Posadas and Dayco conspired to cause undue injury to the government, the court said, "Without Dayco's (appointment of) Posadas, the latter could not have... occupied said positions and, more importantly, could not have... obtained compensations for both positions.

"Worse, Dayco did not have the power to make Posadas' twin appointments," the court added.