GR 231042; (February, 2022) (Digest)
G.R. No. 231042. February 23, 2022
ARTURO O. MIÑAO, PETITIONER, VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN (MINDANAO), RESPONDENT.
FACTS
The case stemmed from a letter-complaint regarding the alleged anomalous purchase of guardrails and guardrail posts worth P5,500,000.00 in 2004 by the 1st Engineering District of the DPWH in Dipolog City. A Commission on Audit (COA) audit investigation report found that the DPWH resorted to splitting of contracts by awarding 11 purchase orders worth P500,000.00 each to AUF Enterprises without public bidding, purchased overpriced and substandard materials, and caused wastage of government resources. Petitioner Arturo O. Miñao, then OIC District Engineer, and his co-respondents denied the allegations. They argued that the Special Allotment Release Order (SARO) from the DBM had already divided the main project into 11 projects of P500,000.00 each, and that Republic Act No. 9184 (the Government Procurement Reform Act) should not apply as its effectivity preceded the SARO’s issuance. The Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao found petitioner and his co-respondents administratively liable for Grave Misconduct, Gross Neglect of Duty, Serious Dishonesty, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of Service, and imposed the penalty of dismissal. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Ombudsman’s finding that petitioner is administratively liable for Grave Misconduct, Gross Neglect of Duty, Serious Dishonesty, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of Service.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the assailed Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution. The Court held that petitioner was correctly found administratively liable. The evidence substantially established that petitioner participated in the splitting of contracts, a prohibited act defined under Section 54.1 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9184, by procuring identical materials for a single project through 11 separate purchase orders from the same supplier, each valued at P500,000.00, to avoid the requirement of public bidding. The Court rejected petitioner’s defense that the SARO authorized the splitting, noting that a SARO is merely a fund release document and does not determine the propriety of the procurement method. The Court also found that the procurement violated applicable rules, as the failure to conduct a public bidding was unjustified even under the old procurement law (E.O. No. 40 and P.D. No. 1594) given the aggregate contract amount. The findings of the Ombudsman, affirmed by the CA, were supported by substantial evidence and are accorded respect and finality. The imposed penalty of dismissal, with its accessory penalties, was proper.