GR 235595; (December, 2022) (Digest)
G.R. No. 235595 , December 07, 2022
CESAR C. PAITA, PETITIONER, VS. TASK FORCE ABONO FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
In 2004, the Department of Agriculture (DA) allocated PHP 5,000,000.00 to the Province of Camarines Norte for agricultural supplies under the Farm Inputs and Farm Implements Program. Petitioner Cesar C. Paita, the Provincial Engineer and a member of the Provincial Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC), signed BAC Resolution No. 2004-01 dated April 16, 2004. This resolution recommended the direct contracting procurement of liquid fertilizer from Hexaphil Agriventures, Inc. (Hexaphil) for the full amount, based on certifications that Hexaphil was the sole distributor in Region V and that there was no suitable substitute for its product. Subsequently, the Ombudsman filed an administrative charge against Paita. In a Decision dated November 12, 2013, the Ombudsman found Paita guilty of Grave Misconduct and Conduct Grossly Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and imposed the penalty of dismissal. The Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling in its Decision dated May 31, 2017. Paita elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing violation of his right to speedy disposition of cases, error in the finding of administrative liability, and that his unblemished length of service should be a mitigating circumstance.
ISSUE
1. Whether Paita’s constitutional right to a speedy disposition of his case was violated.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Paita’s culpability for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
3. Whether Paita’s unblemished length of public service can be considered a mitigating circumstance.
RULING
1. No, there was no violation of Paita’s right to a speedy disposition of his case. The Supreme Court applied the balancing test and the factors from Cagang v. Sandiganbayan. While the incident occurred in 2004 and the Ombudsman’s decision was rendered in 2013, the delay was not unreasonable, arbitrary, or oppressive. The investigation involved a complex national issue (the “fertilizer scam”) with numerous respondents. Furthermore, Paita failed to assert his right to speedy disposition at the earliest opportunity during the proceedings before the Ombudsman.
2. No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed that Paita is liable for Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. As a PBAC member, Paita patently disregarded procurement rules under Republic Act No. 9184 and its implementing rules. He approved direct contracting without ensuring the existence of the conditions required by law for such alternative mode, such as verifying Hexaphil’s exclusive distributorship or the lack of suitable substitutes. His claim of having signed in good faith based on the recommendations of technical personnel is not a valid defense, as he had a non-delegable duty to ensure compliance with procurement laws. His actions tarnished the integrity of his office.
3. No, Paita’s unblemished length of service cannot be considered a mitigating circumstance. The offenses of Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service are grave offenses punishable by dismissal. Length of service is not a mitigating factor for such grave charges, as it cannot extenuate the gravity of the infraction. The penalty of dismissal stands.