Romualdez-Yap vs.

Civil Service Commission

G.R. No. L- 104226, August 12, 1993

FACTS:
Petitioner Conchita Romualdez-Yap started working with the PNB on September 20,
1972 as special assistant with the rank of Second Assistant Manager assigned to the office of the
PNB President. After several promotions, she was appointed in 1983 Senior V-President
assigned to the Fund Transfer Department.
Starting April 1, 1986 up to February 20, 1987, petitioner filed several applications for
leave of absence due to medical reasons which were duly approved. While she was on leave, E.O
No. 80 (Revised Charter of the PNB) was approved. Said Order authorized the
restructure/reorganization and rehabilitation of PNB. Pursuant to the reorganization plan, the
Fund Transfer Department was abolished and its functions transferred to the International
Department. Consequently, petitioner was notified of her separation from the service. Petitioner
appealed to the Civil Service Commission questioning her separation. Then CSC Chairman
upheld the validity of her separation. Hence this petition.

ISSUE:
1. Was there bad faith in the reorganization of the PNB resulting in the separation from
the service of petitioner?

DECISION:
NO.
A reorganization whether in a government bureau performing constituent functions or in
a government-owned or controlled corporation performing ministrant functions must meet a
common test, the test of good faith. In this connection, the philosophy behind PNBs
reorganization is spelled out in the whereas clauses of EO No. 80: WHEREAS, within the
context of the general policy there nevertheless exists a clear role for direct government
participation in the banking system, particularly in servicing the requirements of agriculture,
small and medium scale industry, export development, and the government sector. WHEREAS,
in pursuit of this national policy there is need to restructure the government financial institutions,

particularly the PNB, to achieve a more efficient and effective use of available scarce resources,
to improve its viability, and to avoid unfair competition with the private sector, and
WHEREAS, the reorganization and rehabilitation of the PNB, into a similar but stronger and
more operationally viable bank is an important component of the nationalization programs for
both the financial system and the government corporation sector; Due to the restructuring- and
this is empirically verifiable-PNB became once more a viable banking institution. The
restoration of the FTD four years after it was abolished and its functions transferred to the
International Department, can be attributed to the banks growth after reorganizations, thereby
negating malice or bad faith in that reorganization. The essence of good faith lies in an honest
belief in the validity of ones right. It consists of an honest intention to abstain from taking an
unconscionable and unscrupulous advantage of another, its absence should be established by
convincing evidence.

Luciano vs. Provincial Governor

G.R. No. L- 30306, June 20, 1969

FACTS:
Mayor Maximo Estrella, V-Mayor Teotimo Gealogo, Councilors Jose Luciano, Justino
Ventura, Johnny Wilson, Pedro Ison, Bernardo Nonato, Ignacio Babasa, Juan Tengco and Cesar
Alzona were declared elected municipal officials of Makati during the general elections of Nov.
14, 1967. On Jan. 18, 1969, a criminal case was instituted against them for violation of Sections
3-G and 4-B of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The criminal information
substantially charged that, Mayor Estrella and his co-accused, conspiring and confederating
together, unlawfully entered into a contract with JEF Enterprises for delivery and installation of
59 traffic deflectors valued at P1,426.50 each, 34 units thereof having been delivered, installed
and paid for in the total amount of P48, 841.00, less 10% which was retained, such contract
being manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the municipal government of Makati and to the
latters prejudice.
On Feb. 12, 1969, the Secretary of Justice rendered the opinion sought by the Provincial
Fiscal declaring that under Section 13 of RA 3019, it was the mandatory duty of the Provincial
Governor to suspend Mayor Estrella and the other elective officials who were prosecuted,
pending final judgment in the Criminal case. An injunction suit was then filed by the plaintiffs in
the CFI of Rizal against the Provincial Governor, to prevent the latter from suspending them and
contending that such suspension would be violative of constitutional due process and such power
of preventive suspension is now vested exclusively in the Provincial Board pursuant to Section 5
of the Decentralization Act of 1967.
Meanwhile, petitioner, in his capacity as No. 1 Councilor of Makati and a private citizen
commenced a mandamus and quo warranto proceedings against herein respondents. Thereafter,
herein respondent municipal officials were convicted in a criminal case filed against them.
Respondents then filed with the CA an injunction with prayer for preliminary injunction against
petitioner Luciano, to stop the latter from assuming the post of Mayor and to which a decision
was rendered in their favor.
Meantime, petitioner Luciano filed before this court a motion for preliminary mandatory
injunction to order the Provincial Governor/Board to immediately suspend respondent elective

municipal officials of Makati and to either install petitioner his right as acting Mayor pending
final judgment of the case. Respondents moved to dismiss the case on the ground that petitioner
lost any and all personality for being charged in violation of Section 3 (a) and (e) of RA 3019.
Petitioner then moved to dismiss the case against him for the information was null and void and
has no basis.

ISSUE:
1. Is the reelection of the respondents bar their removal from office for misconduct
committed during their previous term?

DECISION:
NO.
Under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, reelection of a public official does not
bar prosecution for crimes committed prior thereto by said official. The argument that reelection
condones previous criminal acts of an elective official punishable under the anti-graft legislation
makes no eminent sense. For if this were so, then, after the reelection of an official, no crime
committed by him prior thereto becomes repressible even if the time marked by the statute of
limitations has not yet run out. Some such notion is patently offensive to the objectives and the
letter of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. We stand the possibility of being confronted
with the stark reality that an official may amass wealth thru graft and corrupt practices and
thereafter use the same to purchase reelection and thereby launder his evil acts. The two cases
(Pascual vs. Provl Board of Nueva Ecija; and Lizares vs. Hechanova) relied upon have laid
down the precept that a reelected public officer is no longer amenable to administrative sanctions
for acts committed during his former tenure. This precept does not apply to criminal prosecution
under a special statute (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).