GR 212467; (July, 2021) (Digest)
G.R. No. 212467 , July 05, 2021
ROMULO L. NERI, PETITIONER, VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, TEOFISTO GUINGONA, JR., HARRY L. ROQUE, JR., MA. DOMINGA B. PADILLA, ROEL GARCIA, BEBU BELCHAND, AND FR. JOSE P. DIZON, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Romulo L. Neri was the Director General of the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA). In 2006, ZTE Corporation submitted a proposal for the National Broadband Network (NBN) project. Amsterdam Holdings, Inc. (AHI) also submitted a competing proposal, which was reportedly cheaper and did not require government funding. NEDA, under Neri, approved the ZTE proposal. Subsequently, corruption allegations surfaced, including that then COMELEC Chair Benjamin Abalos offered Neri a bribe of ₱200 million for the NBN-ZTE deal. Neri testified in a Senate inquiry that he informed then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo of the bribe attempt but invoked executive privilege when asked about the President’s subsequent actions. A complaint was filed before the Office of the Ombudsman against Neri and others. The Ombudsman found Neri guilty of misconduct and suspended him for six months without pay. On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the finding, holding Neri liable for simple misconduct and imposing a fine equivalent to six months’ salary. Neri filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding Romulo L. Neri guilty of simple misconduct.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ Decision. The Court held that Neri was guilty of simple misconduct. The Court found substantial evidence that Neri failed to uphold the exacting standards of integrity required of public officials. His actions—including introducing his consultant to Abalos, attending dinners with ZTE officials, and continuing to process the ZTE proposal despite knowledge of the bribery attempt—demonstrated a conscious indifference to the consequences of his actions, which eroded public trust. However, the misconduct was not grave, as there was no clear evidence that he acted with corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules for personal benefit. The penalty of a fine equivalent to six months’ salary was affirmed.