G.R. No. 230704, March 15, 2023.
CORAZON C. REYES, PETITIONER, VS. THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON AND FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE II, REPRESENTED BY ATTY. VIC T. ESCALANTE, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

The Field Investigation Office II of the Office of the Ombudsman filed a criminal and administrative complaint against the officers and members of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) of the Municipality of Palauig, Zambales, including petitioner Corazon C. Reyes as Vice-Chairman. The complaint was based on a post-audit by the Commission on Audit (COA) of procurements for office supplies and materials for Calendar Year 2006. The Municipality used the alternative method of procurement through Canvass/Shopping. Tabing Daan Mart emerged as the winning supplier in various procurement activities, with total disbursements amounting to ₱804,678.00. The COA’s Audit Observation Memorandum noted that the procurement was made without an Annual Procurement Plan, used a method of procurement not provided, and favored Tabing Daan Mart. It was certified that the owner of Tabing Daan Mart was Teresita Reyes Lising, the sister of petitioner. The complaint alleged a violation of Section 47 of the Implementing Rules and Regulation (IRR) of Republic Act No. 9184, which requires disclosure of relationships with BAC members, and Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. In their defense, the respondents argued that an Annual Procurement Plan for 2006 existed and was approved, that the relationship with the supplier resulted in reduced prices beneficial to the government, and that the disclosure requirement applied only to competitive bidding, not shopping.

ISSUE

Whether the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion in finding probable cause against petitioner for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, finding the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion. The Court held that the Ombudsman incorrectly applied Section 47 of the 2003 IRR of R.A. No. 9184. The provision on the disclosure of relationships and the automatic disqualification of relatives within the third civil degree applies specifically to competitive bidding, not to the alternative method of shopping/procurement by canvass used in this case. The law and its IRR distinguish between competitive bidding and alternative methods, with different sets of rules. Since the procurement was through shopping, the disclosure and disqualification rules for competitive bidding were inapplicable. Furthermore, the Court found that the elements of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 were not established. There was no evidence of evident bad faith, manifest partiality, or gross inexcusable negligence on the part of the BAC members. The mere fact of a sibling relationship, without proof that it influenced the procurement to give unwarranted benefit or cause undue injury, is insufficient to establish probable cause for the crime. The Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause was based on a misapplication of the law, constituting grave abuse of discretion.