GR 155419; (March, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 155419 . March 04, 2005. HON. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, as Ombudsman, and HON. GREGORIO R. VIGILAR, as the Secretary of the Department of Public Works and Highways, Petitioners, vs. OLIVO C. OCAMPO, Respondent.
FACTS
The case involves the administrative liability of respondent Olivo C. Ocampo, a member of the Pre-Qualification, Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC) of the DPWH’s 1st Engineering District, concerning a regravelling project in Candaba, Pampanga. The PBAC conducted a public bidding where three contractors participated. The bid documents of two bidders, Carwin Construction and Ed-Mar’s Construction, were found to have formal defects, but the PBAC proceeded to open the second envelopes. PRT Construction, the lowest bidder, was awarded the contract. A complaint was later filed alleging irregularities, including that the bidding was rigged and the contract was executed before the issuance of a certificate of availability of funds.
The Ombudsman found Ocampo guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and imposed a one-year suspension. The Ombudsman ruled that the PBAC members conspired to rig the bidding by treating the defects in the competing bids as merely formal to ensure PRT Construction would win. Ocampo appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the Ombudsman’s decision, prompting the petitioners to elevate the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the Ombudsman’s finding of administrative liability against respondent Olivo C. Ocampo for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, absolving Ocampo of administrative liability. The Court held that the Ombudsman’s finding of a rigged bidding was based on mere conjecture and not supported by substantial evidence. The legal logic centered on the nature of the alleged defects in the competing bids and the PBAC’s discretionary authority.
The Court examined the specific defects cited by the Ombudsman, such as the lack of a mayor’s permit and an alleged incomplete equipment list for Carwin Construction, and an expired license for Ed-Mar’s Construction. It found these defects were correctly considered formal and not fatal to the bidders’ eligibility. The Government Accounting and Auditing Manual grants the PBAC discretion to waive such informalities. There was no evidence that Ocampo acted with malice or bad faith in participating in this exercise of discretion. Furthermore, the project was completed and accepted by the government, with no proof of injury or undue advantage. Since administrative liability requires substantial evidence, and none existed to prove dishonesty or conduct prejudicial to the service, the Ombudsman’s ruling could not stand. The Court emphasized that findings of administrative agencies must be based on more than suspicion or speculation.