G.R. No. 231345, August 19, 2019
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN and ROBERTO R. GALON, Petitioners, vs. MELCHOR J. CHIPOCO AND CHRISTY C. BUGANUTAN, Respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from the purchase of a Nissan Patrol vehicle by the Municipality of Labason, Zamboanga del Norte, for ₱960,000.00 from Eduardo Ayunting on January 28, 2011. The vehicle was originally owned by then-Mayor Wilfredo Balais, who sold it to Ayunting for ₱500,000.00 just over a month prior. Roberto Galon filed an administrative complaint alleging the purchase was anomalous, designed to benefit Balais, and violated procurement laws by lacking competitive public bidding. Among the respondents were municipal officials Melchor Chipoco (Municipal Treasurer and Bids and Awards Committee Chairman) and Christy Buganutan (Municipal Accountant and Technical Working Group Head).
The Office of the Ombudsman found respondents administratively liable for Neglect of Duty, imposing a three-month suspension. It ruled that while they did not execute the contract, their act of processing the disbursement and allowing payment for a transaction not in accordance with procurement law demonstrated laxity. Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration, attaching documents purporting to show a competitive bidding had occurred. The Ombudsman denied this motion, and the Court of Appeals reversed the Ombudsman, exonerating the respondents.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the Ombudsman’s finding of administrative liability for Neglect of Duty against respondents Chipoco and Buganutan.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petitions and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision exonerating the respondents. The legal logic centered on the nature of Neglect of Duty as a grave offense requiring proof of gross negligence characterized by want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences. The Court found the Ombudsman’s ruling was based on a presumption that the transaction was non-compliant with Republic Act No. 9184 (the Government Procurement Reform Act) because the vehicle was previously owned by Mayor Balais. However, the respondents, in their capacities, were presented with documents—including an abstract of bids, minutes of a BAC meeting, a notice of award, and a purchase order—that on their face indicated a competitive bidding had been conducted in favor of “Oro Cars Display Center.” Their duty was to ensure supporting documents were complete, not to investigate the authenticity of the transaction’s origins. Processing the disbursement based on these facially complete documents did not constitute the conscious indifference or gross negligence required for Neglect of Duty. The Court emphasized that administrative liability must be predicated on substantial evidence of willful neglect, which was not present, as respondents acted in reliance on the procurement documents submitted to them.