G.R. No. 227405. September 05, 2018.
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, PETITIONER, VS. AMADO M. BLOR, JESUS R. BARRERA, ANGELINA O. QUIJANO, POTENCIANO G. VICEDO, MIRAFLOR B. SOLIVEN, AND ANNIE F. CONSTANTINO, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

This case involves the procurement of six iPad units for the Department of Agrarian Reform Provincial Office (DARPO) in Occidental Mindoro. Respondent Amado M. Blor, as Officer-in-Charge, instructed the procurement. The Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) members, who were also part of the Management Committee and end-users of the items, included respondents Jesus R. Barrera (Chairman), Angelina O. Quijano (Vice-Chairman), and Poteniano G. Vicedo (Member). An undated Requisition and Issue Slip specified “iPad” for use by the PARO and CAROs. The procurement was not included in the 2013 Annual Procurement Plan. Respondent Annie F. Constantino, as Canvass Committee Chair, sent Requests for Quotation to three suppliers. A purchase order and disbursement voucher were subsequently processed and approved by respondents, including respondent Miraflor B. Soliven as certifying accountant. Payment was made on June 24, 2013, and the iPads were received by the officials, including the BAC members, on July 1, 2013.
The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon found respondents guilty of Grave Misconduct and Serious Dishonesty for violating Republic Act No. 9184 (the Government Procurement Reform Act). The Ombudsman ruled that the procurement was illegally conducted through shopping without justification, was not in the procurement plan, and was tainted by a conflict of interest as the BAC members were the end-users. The Court of Appeals reversed the Ombudsman’s decision, finding no substantial evidence of bad faith and ruling that the officials merely relied on the procurement officer’s actions. The Office of the Ombudsman filed this petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the Ombudsman’s finding that respondents are administratively liable for Grave Misconduct and Serious Dishonesty.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reinstated the Ombudsman’s decision, and found respondents administratively liable for Grave Misconduct. The legal logic centers on the violation of established procurement rules and the presence of corrupt intent. Under RA 9184, alternative methods like shopping require justification, such as emergencies or items available from exclusive dealers. No such justification existed here. The procurement was not in the Annual Procurement Plan, and its subsequent inclusion was a clear afterthought. Crucially, the BAC members who should have been impartial were the designated end-users, creating a blatant conflict of interest prohibited by the law’s implementing rules. Their actions—from requisition to approval and receipt—demonstrated a coordinated effort to circumvent public bidding.
The Court emphasized that Grave Misconduct requires a willful intent to violate the law or disregard rules. Respondents’ collective actions, including specifying “iPad” in the requisition, traveling to canvass the units, and processing payments with undue haste, evinced a community of design to violate procurement laws. Their claim of relying on a subordinate is unavailing, as they, as senior officials, had a duty to ensure strict compliance. The violation of a cardinal law like RA 9184, coupled with this intentional disregard, constitutes Grave Misconduct. The penalty serves not merely to punish but to uphold public trust in government. The CA’s finding of no bad faith was a reversible error, as the factual circumstances overwhelmingly pointed to a will