G.R. No. 221884 , November 25, 2019
MANUEL AGULTO AND JOSELITO JAMIR, PETITIONERS, VS. 168 SECURITY, INC. (168 SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICES, INC.), REPRESENTED BY JAIME ANG, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioners Manuel Agulto and Joselito Jamir, as Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor of UP-Manila, entered into a one-year contract for security services with respondent 168 Security and Allied Services, Inc. (168 SASI) for 2012. The contract contained a clause allowing renewal for another year if the performance rating was at least very satisfactory. The contract expired on December 31, 2012. In February 2013, petitioners informed 168 SASI that its services would be extended for only six months, until June 30, 2013. 168 SASI protested, demanding a one-year extension based on its very satisfactory rating. On June 28, 2013, petitioners terminated 168 SASI’s services effective July 15, 2013, citing loss of trust and confidence due to incidents of theft, unauthorized access by protesters, and destruction of property. After an exchange of letters, petitioners, on July 31, 2013, informed 168 SASI of the contract termination for its alleged failure to reply and subsequently directed all UP-Manila offices not to recognize 168 SASI. Petitioners then directly engaged Commander Security Services, Inc. (CSSI) to take over security services without conducting a public bidding. Petitioners claimed the direct engagement was a temporary stop-gap measure to prevent a security hiatus, under the same terms as the previous contract, and subject to a forthcoming public bidding. They cited delays in bidding due to a student suicide incident and a civil case filed by 168 SASI. The Ombudsman found petitioners guilty of grave misconduct for violating the Government Procurement Reform Act (R.A. 9184) by engaging CSSI without bidding, and meted the penalty of dismissal. The Court of Appeals affirmed this finding.

ISSUE

Whether or not petitioners were guilty of grave misconduct.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that petitioners were NOT guilty of grave misconduct. The Court held that not every failure to conduct a public bidding under R.A. 9184 automatically constitutes grave misconduct. For liability to attach, there must be an independent finding that the officials deliberately resorted to negotiated procurement to benefit themselves or another person. In this case, there was no allegation or proof that petitioners’ direct engagement with CSSI was deliberately done for personal gain or to benefit another. The element of intentional wrongdoing required for grave misconduct was absent. The Court found that petitioners acted out of a desire to secure the UP-Manila campus and the Philippine General Hospital, necessitating a temporary arrangement with CSSI to prevent a security hiatus following the termination of 168 SASI. The engagement was temporary, under the same terms to avoid undue cost to the government, and petitioners had initiated steps for a public bidding which faced legitimate delays. The petition was GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals was REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Since petitioners had retired, the GSIS was ordered to grant them their pension and other retirement benefits not received during the pendency of the case.