The Office of the President has dismissed the case for grave misconduct, grave dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service lodged against the former members of the Sugar Board for the issuance of Sugar Order No. 4 (SO No. 4) authorizing the importation of 300,000 metric tons of sugar in August last year.
The Office of the President in a 10-page decision absolved then Agriculture Undersecretary Leocadio S. Sebastian, Administrator Hermenegildo R. Serafica of the Sugar Regulatory Administration, and board members Roland B. Beltran and Aurelio Gerardo J. Valderrama Jr., who have since resigned from their posts.
However, the decision also admonished the respondents to be more prudent in the performance of their duties.
The decision was signed by Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin by authority of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.
The decision said from the totality of the evidence, the Office of the President finds that the issuance of SO No. 4 was done in good faith absent any showing that the respondents were aware of their lack of authority.
The respondents thought they were authorized because of miscommunication, the decision said.
Apparently, the root cause of the miscommunication is a memorandum from then Executive Secretary Victor Rodriguez dated July 15, 2022 which granted Sebastian authority to sign contracts, memoranda of agreement, administrative issuances, instruments, and administrative and financial documents necessary to carry out department objectives, policies, functions, plans, programs, and projects, for the efficient and effective operations of the DA.
SO No. 4 was prepared pursuant to a directive by the President to come up with an importation plan, the draft of which was sent to Rodriguez. Having raised no objection the respondents could have assumed its approval, the decision said.
Thus, when Sebastian signed SO No. 4, this was upon an honest belief that he was authorized to do so, it added.
The manner by which Sebastian signed his name, over the printed name of the President, while not in accordance with the proper protocol, in the absence of bad faith, does not confer liability, particularly because there is no indication that he knew the implications, the decision said.
The decision also said there exists no clear and convincing evidence to suggest that the respondents committed any misconduct. Notably, there is no showing that respondents issued the order in order to materially benefit from it, the decision said.
Neither can respondents be guilty of dishonesty, it said.
The decision said there is no proof that respondents concealed the issuance of the order from the President. On the contrary, the attendant circumstances indicate respondents’ intention to apprise the President on the preparation of and approval of SO No. 4, it said.*