GR 229256; (November, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 229256 NOVEMBER 22, 2017
MARIETTA MAGLAYA DE GUZMAN, Petitioner, vs. THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND BESTFORMS, INCORPORATED, Respondents.
FACTS
The National Printing Office Bids & Awards Committee (NPO-BAC), chaired by petitioner Marietta Maglaya De Guzman, conducted public biddings for printing contracts. Bestforms, Inc. initially won awards. Subsequently, the NPO discovered Bestforms violated security printing rules and used substandard paper, as confirmed by a PNP Crime Laboratory report. Consequently, the NPO revoked Bestforms’ accreditation, cancelled its contracts, and subjected the projects to re-bidding via Limited Source Bidding and later, Negotiated Procurement, awarding them to Readyform, Inc. (RFI).
Bestforms filed an administrative complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman against De Guzman and other NPO officers, alleging conspiracy to manipulate the award to RFI. The Ombudsman found De Guzman guilty of Grave Misconduct for the NPO-BAC’s failure to observe mandatory procurement procedures under R.A. 9184 (Government Procurement Reform Act) during the re-bidding and negotiated procurement.
ISSUE
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman correctly found petitioner Marietta Maglaya De Guzman guilty of Grave Misconduct.
RULING
Yes, the Ombudsman’s finding was correct and affirmed by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. The legal logic rests on the established principle that factual findings of the Ombudsman, when supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive and binding if affirmed by the CA. The Court found such substantial evidence demonstrating that De Guzman, as BAC Chairperson, presided over procurement processes that flagrantly violated R.A. 9184. The NPO-BAC failed to: conduct a mandatory pre-procurement conference; send written invitations to the Commission on Audit and observers; properly advertise and post the Invitation to Bid; and include essential information like the Approved Budget for the Contract in bidding documents. These were not mere procedural lapses but constituted a conscious disregard of established rules, which characterizes Grave Misconduct—a transgression grounded on corruption, a clear intent to violate the law, or a flagrant disregard of established rule. The violations were directly related to De Guzman’s official functions, evidencing a willful intent to disregard legal provisions governing public bidding. Thus, her dismissal from government service was legally justified.