G.R. No. 238563 , February 12, 2020
MANSUE NERY LUKBAN, PETITIONER, VS. OMBUDSMAN CONCHITA CARPIO-MORALES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

This case arose from the procurement of second-hand light police operational helicopters (LPOHs) for the Philippine National Police (PNP), known as the “chopper scam.” Petitioner P/SSupt. Mansue Nery Lukban was the Chief of the Management Division of the PNP Directorate for Comptrollership. The procurement involved three LPOHs with specifications set by the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM). After failed biddings, a negotiated procurement was conducted, and the contract was awarded to Manila Aerospace Products and Trading (MAPTRA). An investigation later revealed that the delivered helicopters did not meet the NAPOLCOM specifications and were not brand new but were pre-owned by then First Gentleman Mike Arroyo. The Ombudsman’s Field Investigation Office filed a complaint charging Lukban and others with administrative offenses, including Serious Dishonesty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. Lukban’s involvement was based on his signature “NOTED” on an Inspection Report Form prepared by a subordinate, which declared the helicopters conformed to specifications. Lukban argued he was not a member of any procurement committee and his role was ministerial, limited to verifying supporting documents for fund release.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Ombudsman’s finding that petitioner Lukban 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 Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court held that substantial evidence supports Lukban’s administrative liability. As Chief of the Management Division, Lukban had a duty to ensure the accuracy of the Inspection Report Form before affixing his notation. By signing the form, he attested to the helicopters’ conformity with specifications, despite knowing they were non-compliant and pre-owned, thus participating in a scheme to defraud the government. His act of falsifying the document constituted Serious Dishonesty, defined as intentional deceit through falsehood or concealment of facts. It also constituted Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, as it caused undue injury to the government. The Court emphasized that the Ombudsman’s factual findings, when supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive. The penalty of dismissal, with forfeiture of benefits and perpetual disqualification from public office, was upheld. Since Lukban had already retired, the alternative penalty of a fine equivalent to one year’s salary was imposed in addition to the accessory penalties.