Former Exec Wins Case vs SBMA

by Vic V. Vizcocho, Jr.

WITH the Supreme Court Decision favoring his petition, Stefani C. Saño, former Senior Deputy Administrator of the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA), is hopeful that some four (4) years after retiring from government service he will finally receive his retirement benefits.
Saño’s benefits had to wait pending resolution of his petition contesting the Formal Charge and Order of Preventive Suspension issued against him in August 2012 by then SBMA Chairman & Administrator Roberto V. Garcia in connection with a smuggling attempt of 420,000 bags of rice to the Subic Bay Freeport.
Implicated in the controversy in an ensuing Senate Hearing, Garcia issued a Formal Charge against Saño citing Grave Misconduct, Gross Neglect of Duty, Dishonesty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Interest of the Service, placing him under a ninety (90) day preventive suspension.
Saño assailed Garcia’s actions claiming, among others, “that he was denied due process and that said order was issued with manifest partiality, bad faith and grave abuse of authority.”
In May 2013, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) ruled in favor of SBMA (Garcia) and subsequently the Court of Appeals (CA) in April 2015 and February 2016, prompting Saño to seek relief from the Supreme Court, questioning the authority of Garcia to issue the Formal Charge and Preventive Suspension “as it is the Disciplinary Action Committee that has such authority pursuant to SBMA’s own rules on Administrative Discipline.”
Garcia, for his part, argued that the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS) repealed the SBMA’s own Rules on Administrative discipline and thus, he is the disciplining authority with the power to issue an order of preventive suspension.
In a decision promulgated on October 13, 2021 but released only recently, the Supreme Court’s 1st Division “reversed and set aside” the 2015 decision and 2016 resolution of the CA. “The formal charge and order of suspension are hereby declared invalid and without legal basis,” the Supreme Court said.
NO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
SBMA tends to accept the SC decision and may no longer file a Motion for Reconsideration (MR).
“While the option to file a Motion for Reconsideration yet remains with the SBMA, it would appear that the Agency has already exhausted its arguments during previous court proceedings,” the SBMA Legal Department said in response to Subic Bay News’ query, “Although we have yet to receive our copy of the Supreme Court decision… we welcome this new development in this long-standing issue of concern to which the agency is party.”
“If we don’t do an MR, then we will follow the instructions of the SC (have the 90 days monetized at the current rate),” SBMA Chairman & Administrator Wilma T. Eisma said, “that is the right thing to do absent an MR.”
Garcia declined to comment.

VINDICATION
“The favorable decision of the Supreme Court brings joy not only to me but also to my family, colleagues and friends who all suffered because of the unjust and atrocious treatment I got from certain officials of a previous administration of SBMA,” Saño said, “we all felt much relief with this vindication.”
“As this decision becomes part of Philippine Jurisprudence, this may guide officials, managers and employees on the rights and proper behavior and handling of cases in the workplace,” Saño told Subic Bay News,” I hope this vindication sends strong signals to tyrants and would-be tyrants in the agencies and offices, government and private alike.”