GR 133954; (August, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 133954 ; August 3, 2000
VICTORIANO B. TIROL, JR., petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Region VIII, represented by its DIRECTOR, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Victoriano B. Tirol, Jr., then Regional Director of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) Region VIII, was charged with violating Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft Law) for entering into a contract grossly disadvantageous to the government. The charge stemmed from his approval of a Requisition and Issue Voucher (RIV) and a check for the purchase of various school equipment for Lalawigan National High School amounting to ₱80,000. The Commission on Audit (COA) audited the transaction and found it was procured through negotiated contract without the required public bidding, resulting in an overprice of ₱35,100 compared to COA’s actual canvass.
The Office of the Ombudsman found probable cause and filed an Information with the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, arguing his approval was a ministerial act based on his subordinates’ certifications. The Ombudsman denied the motion, ruling that the amount involved and the absence of bidding should have alerted him to scrutinize the documents, and the purchase did not qualify as a valid emergency procurement. Petitioner then filed this petition for review on certiorari under the Ombudsman Act.
ISSUE
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause to indict petitioner for violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019 .
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Ombudsman’s resolutions. The Court held that the determination of probable cause is an executive function vested in the Ombudsman, and its findings are generally not reviewable by the Court absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion. The Court found no such abuse. Petitioner’s defense that his approval was ministerial was untenable. As the approving authority, he had the responsibility to ensure that the transaction complied with legal requirements, particularly the mandate for public bidding for purchases exceeding ₱50,000. His failure to ascertain the absence of bidding and the glaring overprice, as detailed in the COA report, negated his claim of mere good faith or negligence and supported a finding of probable cause for entering into a manifestly disadvantageous contract.
The Court also noted that petitioner engaged in forum shopping by filing a separate petition ( G.R. No. 135913 ) challenging the same Ombudsman resolutions after the precedent in Fabian v. Desierto had clarified the proper remedy. This tactic was condemned as dilatory. The Ombudsman did not act capriciously; its finding was based on substantial evidence, including the COA audit and the admitted lack of bidding. Therefore, the petition was denied for lack of merit.