GR 133517; (January, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 133517 ; January 30, 2006
ALBAY ACCREDITED CONSTRUCTORS ASSOCIATION, INC., represented herein by its duly authorized Secretary, RODOLFO L. MADRID, JR., Petitioner, vs. HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN ANIANO A. DESIERTO, LYLIA CORPORAL-SENA, OSCAR L. LANDAGAN, PRE-QUALIFICATION BIDS AND AWARDS COMMITTEE (PBAC) OF BICOL UNIVERSITY, and its members, namely: EDUARDO M. LORIA, CIELO L. REX, AMALIA A. SARET, and DONATO F. M. BAÑARES, and LUDOLFO P. MUÑOZ, JR., Respondents.
FACTS
Bicol University, through its Pre-qualification Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC), conducted a public bidding for a construction project. Among the bidders were petitioner Albay Accredited Constructors Association, Inc. (AACA) and private respondent Ludolfo P. Muñoz, Jr., proprietor of L.P. Muñoz, Jr. Construction. After evaluation, Muñoz Construction was determined to have submitted the lowest complying and most responsive bid. Before the contract award, an allegation surfaced that the signature of Engr. Rafael Armario, the project engineer listed in Muñoz’s pre-qualification documents, was forged. The PBAC investigated, requiring Muñoz to submit a written explanation and later to name a replacement project engineer, which he complied with. The PBAC, finding no substantial defect and considering the withdrawn nature of the forgery complaint, reiterated its recommendation. The contract was subsequently awarded to Muñoz Construction.
ISSUE
Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act ( Republic Act No. 3019 ) against the Bicol University officials and Muñoz.
RULING
No, the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that certiorari under Rule 65 lies only when there is a clear showing of capricious, arbitrary, or whimsical exercise of power. The Ombudsman’s findings, based on the evidence, were that the respondents did not act with evident bad faith, manifest partiality, or gross inexcusable negligence. The legal logic is that for a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 to exist, the act must cause undue injury or give unwarranted benefits through such manifest partiality, bad faith, or gross negligence. Here, the PBAC acted prudently by investigating the forgery allegation. When the complainant, Engr. Armario, refused to formally pursue the charge and Muñoz provided a replacement engineer, the committee validly concluded there was no disqualifying defect. The award to the lowest bidder was advantageous to the government and in accordance with procurement rules. The Ombudsman’s determination of insufficient evidence for probable cause is within its constitutional discretion, and absent a clear abuse, the Court will not interfere. The petition was dismissed.