G.R. No. 232532. October 01, 2018.
ALFREDO G. GERMAR, PETITIONER, VS. FELICIANO P. LEGASPI, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Alfredo G. Germar, the newly elected Mayor of Norzagaray, Bulacan, entered into contracts for professional service with six consultants during his term. The budget for these consultancy services was included as a line item under “Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses” in the municipality’s 2013 appropriation ordinance. Respondent Feliciano P. Legaspi, the former mayor, filed an administrative complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman, alleging Grave Misconduct. Legaspi contended that Germar violated Section 444(b)(1)(vi) of the Local Government Code, which requires prior authorization from the Sangguniang Bayan for the local chief executive to sign contracts binding the municipality.
The Ombudsman found Germar guilty of Grave Misconduct, imposing the penalty of dismissal. The Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling, holding that the mere inclusion of a budgetary allocation in an appropriation ordinance does not constitute the specific prior authorization required by law for entering into contracts. Germar elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether or not petitioner Germar is guilty of Grave Misconduct for entering into consultancy contracts based solely on the authority of the appropriations ordinance, without a separate prior authorization from the Sangguniang Bayan.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the rulings of the Ombudsman and the Court of Appeals and ABSOLVED Germar of the administrative charge of Grave Misconduct. The Court held that Germar’s acts did not constitute the willful intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rules required for a finding of Grave Misconduct.
The legal logic centers on the interpretation of the required authorization under the Local Government Code. The Court clarified that an appropriation ordinance, when it contains a specific line item for a particular purpose, can serve as the legislative authorization needed for the local chief executive to enter into related contracts. The 2013 ordinance of Norzagaray explicitly appropriated funds for “Consultancy Services” under the Office of the Mayor. By allocating a specific budget, the Sangguniang Bayan had effectively given its prior consent for the mayor to undertake the procurement of such services. Germar’s subsequent act of entering into the contracts was a mere implementation of this legislative mandate.
The Court emphasized that for misconduct to be “grave,” it must be characterized by corruption, a clear intent to violate the law, or a flagrant disregard of established rules. Germar’s reliance on the valid appropriation ordinance demonstrated good faith and a belief that he was acting within legal bounds. There was no evidence of corrupt motive or a conscious design to circumvent the law. His actions constituted, at most, simple negligence or an error in judgment, not the deliberate wrongdoing necessary for Grave Misconduct. Consequently, the imposition of the extreme penalty of dismissal was unwarranted.