G.R. No. 216771. March 28, 2022
HEROLD G. UBALDE, PETITIONER, VS. HON. CONCHITA C. MORALES, IN HER CAPACITY AS THE OMBUDSMAN, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
The case involves the procurement anomaly known as the “chopper scam,” concerning the purchase of second-hand light police helicopters (LPOHs) for the Philippine National Police (PNP). Petitioner Herold G. Ubalde, as Director of the PNP Legal Services, was a regular member of the PNP National Headquarters Bids and Awards Committee (NHQ-BAC). The PNP planned to purchase three LPOHs with an approved budget of P105,000,000.00. After two failed public biddings, the NHQ-BAC recommended negotiated procurement. A request was later made to procure one equipped and two standard LPOHs instead of three equipped units. The Negotiation Committee accepted the proposal of Manila Aerospace Products Trading (MAPTRA) Sole Proprietorship to supply the helicopters for P104,985,000.00. Subsequently, a Supply Contract was entered into with MAPTRA Corporation. Hilario B. De Vera, President of MAPTRA Sole Proprietorship, certified under oath that the three LPOHs were brand new. Upon delivery, inspection reports indicated the units did not fully conform to specifications, notably lacking air conditioning. The PNP paid MAPTRA Corporation a total of P99,360,803.60. The Field Investigation Office of the Ombudsman filed complaints, alleging the sale caused undue injury to the government. The Ombudsman found Ubalde and others administratively liable for serious dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, imposing the penalty of dismissal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Ombudsman’s ruling.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Ombudsman’s finding that petitioner Herold G. Ubalde is administratively liable for serious dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the Ombudsman’s findings were supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner, as a member of the NHQ-BAC, participated in the procurement process that resulted in the purchase of helicopters which were misrepresented as brand new and did not conform to specifications, causing pecuniary damage to the government. His actions constituted serious dishonesty, characterized by the presence of intent to violate the truth, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The penalty of dismissal from service, with forfeiture of retirement benefits and perpetual disqualification from public office, was appropriate. The Court emphasized that factual findings of the Ombudsman, when supported by substantial evidence and affirmed by the CA, are conclusive.
