G.R. No. 129036; August 6, 2008
COL. ARTURO C. FERRER (RET.), petitioner, vs. HON. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ROMEO G. DAVID, Former Administrator, JOEMARI D. GEROCHI, Administrator, National Food Authority (NFA), FRANCISCO G. CORDOBA, JR., chairman, PBAC, MARCELINO B. AGANA IV, EVANGELINE V. ANAGO, BENJAMIN D. JAVIER, and CELIA Z. TAN, Members, PBAC, respondents.

FACTS

The National Food Authority (NFA) conducted a public bidding for security services in 1994. Petitioner Arturo Ferrer, owner of Odin Security Agency, participated but protested the conduct of the bidding, alleging collusion between two participating “sister” agencies, Metroguard and Davao Security and Investigation Agency, Inc. (DASIA). The Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) issued opinions declaring the bids of Metroguard and DASIA as collusive and recommending their rejection. However, DASIA successfully challenged its disqualification before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, which ordered the NFA to consider its bid. While the NFA’s appeal of this RTC decision was pending before the Court of Appeals, the NFA proceeded to award contracts to Metroguard and DASIA.
Ferrer subsequently filed a complaint-affidavit with the Office of the Ombudsman against the NFA officials, charging them with violations of Section 3(e) and (g) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. He alleged that by proceeding with the awards despite the pending appeal and the OGCC’s opinions on collusion, the respondents acted with manifest partiality, gave unwarranted benefits, and entered into contracts disadvantageous to the government. The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, finding no basis for the graft charges.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the graft complaint against the NFA officials.

RULING

No, the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review over the Ombudsman’s exercise of investigatory and prosecutorial powers. The Court reiterated that such powers are executive and discretionary in nature. Absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion—which implies a capricious, arbitrary, or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction—the Court will not interfere.
The Ombudsman’s finding of no probable cause was reasonable. The NFA officials’ act of awarding the contracts was done in compliance with the final and executory decision of the RTC in favor of DASIA, which had not been restrained by a higher court. Public officials are presumed to have regularly performed their duties, and in this case, they were merely obeying a court order. The pendency of an appeal does not automatically negate the executory nature of a trial court’s decision unless a stay order is issued. The Ombudsman correctly determined that the respondents’ reliance on the RTC ruling negated the element of “manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence” required under the Anti-Graft law. Therefore, the petition was denied for lack of merit.