OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT VS BUENAOBRA

GR No. 170021 September 8, 2006

I. BRIEF SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Office of the Ombudsman’s Special Prosecution Officer charged Nita P. Buenaobra,
Chairman of the Komisyon sa Wikang Pilipino (KWP), with gross inexcusable negligence causing
undue injury to the government when Buenaobra did not take legal action to collect the 15%
royalty fee of P3,366,250.00 approved by the KWF Board to be levied against Merylvin Publishing
House Inc., for its unauthorized reprinting and selling of the Diksyunaryo ng Wikang Pilipino.

While investigation with Sandiganbayan was ongoing, the Presidential Anti- Graft Commission
(PAGC) also conducted a parallel administrative investigation and recommended for Buenaobra’s
dismissal from government service, with forfeiture of financial benefits and disqualification from
joining the government. PAGC reasoned that Buenaobra was a presidential appointee and a holder
of a non-career service position, hence she could be removed from the service at the pleasure of
the President.

The Court of Appeals granted Buenaobra’s petition for review holding that the proceedings before
the PAGC was procedurally and substantially flawed as PAGC did not give Buenaobra the
opportunity to present evidence. The Court of Appeal’s also found no evidence to prove
Buenaobra’s administrative liability in not collecting the 15% royalty fee.

II. RELEVANT ISSUE

WON a presidential appointee and a holder of a non-career service position could be removed
from the service at the pleasure of the President.

III. RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT

Non-career service personnel enjoy security of tenure. They may not be removed without just
cause and non-observance of due process.

Under Section 4, Article IV, of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 807, or the Civil Service Decree,
positions in the civil service are classified into career service and non-career service. Section 6 of
the same article describes a non-career service employee or officer as follows:

Section 6. The Non-Career Service shall be characterized by (1) entrance on bases other
than those of the usual tests of merit and fitness utilized for the career service; and (2)
tenure which is limited to a period specified by law, or which is coterminous with that of
 the appointing authority or subject to his pleasure, or which is limited to the duration of a
particular project for which purpose employment was made.
The Non-Career Service shall include:

3. Chairman and members of commissions and boards with fixed terms of office and their
personal or confidential staff;

The constitutional and statutory guarantee of security of tenure is extended to both those in the
career and non-career service positions, and the cause under which an employee may be removed
or suspended must naturally have some relation to the character or fitness of the officer or
employee, for the discharge of the functions of his office, or expiration of the project for which
the employment was extended.

In the case at hand, there is no showing that Buenaobra's failure to file suit to collect the royalty
fee prejudiced the government. The act of "not taking legal action to collect" is not defined by any
criminal statute as an offense by omission per se. If it were so, a sizeable number of public officials
would be out if the government service by mere omission to take such action.

Since an omission is not a criminal offense per se, it could be the basis of an administrative action
only if there is a positive duty to take legal action. The office of the Ombudsman already ruled that
Buenaobra cannot be faulted if she instituted no action to collect royalty fee from the publishing
house. In fact, if she instituted such action, the same would be unauthorized and without legal basis
as there was no contract between the KWF and the publisher. The non-collection was not due to
inaction of Buenaobra but because of the KWF Board Resolution No. 2000-2 disauthorizing
Buenaobra from entering into contract with Merylvin Publishing House.

Buenaobra did not give any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to the publisher nor had
she acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. Such being
the case, it necessarily follows that the charge/ complaint against Buenaobra must be dismissed.

Case Digest by: LUZ CELINE ARAT- CABADING