G.R. No. 152188. July 8, 2005.
FLORENTINO R. BRUCAL and CESAR A. CRUZ, Petitioners, vs. HON. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, Ombudsman, HON. SIMEON A. DATUMANONG, Secretary of the Department of Public Works and Highways, and THE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Florentino R. Brucal and Cesar A. Cruz were officials of the DPWH Second Engineering District in Quezon. Brucal was the project engineer and Cruz was the chief of the construction section for the Inaclagan Barangay High School building project. An administrative complaint was filed against them and others for irregularities in the project’s implementation. The OMB Task Force investigation found that the contractor, RAM Builders, used substandard, undersized steel bars and poor-quality lumber, constituting major deviations from the approved plans. This resulted in a structurally weaker building.
Despite these defects, petitioners certified the project’s compliance. Cruz certified that all work was accomplished per approved plans and specifications. Brucal certified he witnessed payments to laborers and suppliers and that no claims for unpaid materials existed, and he signed the request for inspection and the statement of work accomplished. These certifications facilitated the contractor’s claim for payment.

ISSUE

Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding petitioners administratively liable for Dishonesty and Gross Neglect of Duty and imposing the penalty of dismissal.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the Ombudsman and the Court of Appeals. The legal logic rests on the petitioners’ specific duties and their failure to fulfill them, which constituted gross neglect. As project engineer, Brucal had the direct responsibility to oversee construction, monitor compliance, and detect deviations. The Manual on Infrastructure Projects mandates that a project engineer must, upon finding non-compliance, prepare a directive for the contractor to repair or reconstruct defective work at its own expense. Brucal’s failure to identify the gross deviations and to take corrective action constituted a blatant disregard of this duty.
For Cruz, as chief of the construction section, his certification that work complied with plans, when patently false given the use of substandard materials, constituted dishonesty. Dishonesty, as defined, involves a disposition to lie, cheat, or deceive. By attesting to compliance, he facilitated payment for a defective project. The Court found the Ombudsman’s factual conclusions, based on substantial evidence from the investigation, to be conclusive. The penalty of dismissal for these grave offenses is prescribed by law and was thus correctly imposed. The Court emphasized that the Ombudsman’s findings of fact, when supported by evidence, are accorded respect and finality.