G.R. No. 225718, March 04, 2020
JOSE M. ROY III, PETITIONER, V. THE HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN, CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES AND FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AS REPRESENTED BY LUISITO S. SUAREZ, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

In January 2006, the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila (PLM) initiated the procurement of a vehicle for its Open University Distance Learning Program. The request, specifying a 10-seater van with detailed specifications, was approved by then PLM President Benjamin G. Tayabas. The Supply Officer, Alfredo C. Ferrer Jr., indicated that only a Hyundai Starex van met the requirements and suggested its purchase via direct contracting instead of public bidding. The Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) evaluated quotations and recommended direct contracting. Petitioner Jose M. Roy III was appointed Acting President of PLM on February 24, 2006. On May 17, 2006, he signed BAC Resolution No. 09-G-06 recommending direct contracting, and on May 18, 2006, he signed the Purchase Order for a Hyundai Starex from Hyundai Quezon Avenue. The vehicle was purchased on June 6, 2006. In 2010, the Commission on Audit (COA) issued a Notice of Suspension, citing irregularities: lack of approval from the Board of Regents as the Head of the Procuring Entity, improper resort to direct contracting since Hyundai Otis was not an exclusive dealer, and a discrepancy between the recommended dealer (Hyundai Otis) and the actual supplier (Hyundai Quezon Avenue). The Field Investigation Office of the Ombudsman filed a complaint against petitioner and other PLM officials for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and R.A. No. 9184. The Ombudsman, in a Resolution dated November 9, 2015, found probable cause to indict them. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, presenting a COA Notice of Settlement of Suspension/Disallowance/Charge dated November 23, 2015, which settled the earlier suspension. The Ombudsman denied the motion via a Joint Order dated April 29, 2016. Petitioner then filed this special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65.

ISSUE

Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in finding probable cause to indict petitioner for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.

RULING

Yes, the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion. The petition is granted. The Court reversed and set aside the Ombudsman’s Resolution and Joint Order and dismissed the criminal case against the petitioner.
The Court held that the second and third elements of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 were lacking. The elements are: (1) the accused is a public officer discharging official functions; (2) he acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and (3) his action caused undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits.
While the first element was present as petitioner was the Acting President of PLM, the second and third elements were absent. There was no evidence that petitioner acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. His acts of signing the BAC resolution and purchase order were done in good faith and in the regular performance of his duties, following the recommendations of the BAC and other officials. Furthermore, the third element was not established. The government suffered no actual injury or damage from the transaction. The vehicle was delivered, used for its intended purpose, and the COA itself subsequently settled the suspension, indicating the transaction was ultimately in order. The absence of these elements means there was no probable cause to prosecute the petitioner. The Court found that the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause was not supported by substantial evidence and was thus issued with grave abuse of discretion.