GR 236383; (June, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 236383 , June 26, 2019
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner vs. MARILYN H. CELIZ AND LUVISMINDA H. NARCISO, Respondents
FACTS
Respondents Marilyn H. Celiz and Luvisminda H. Narciso were members of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) of the DPWH Region VI. In 2007, due to the urgent need to repair a primary road for the upcoming Dinagyang Festival, the DPWH Regional Director requested and obtained approval from the DPWH Secretary to implement an Asphalt Overlay Project via negotiated procurement. The BAC, including the respondents, subsequently passed resolutions recommending the award of the contract to International Builders’ Corporation (IBC). The contractor commenced work despite the absence of an approved budget and a formal contract at that time. Funds were only released via a Sub-Allotment Release Order (SARO) in December 2008, after which a formal contract was executed in January 2009.
The Office of the Ombudsman found the respondents guilty of Grave Misconduct and ordered their dismissal. The Ombudsman ruled that the negotiated procurement was unjustified and that the respondents violated procurement laws by proceeding without the requisite certification of availability of funds. The respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals, which partially granted their appeal. The CA exonerated them of Grave Misconduct but found them guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty, modifying the penalty accordingly. The Office of the Ombudsman then elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding the respondents guilty only of Simple Neglect of Duty instead of Grave Misconduct as ruled by the Office of the Ombudsman.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The legal logic hinges on the distinction between Grave Misconduct and Simple Neglect of Duty. Misconduct is a transgression of established rules, and to be considered grave, it must be accompanied by corruption, a clear intent to violate the law, or a flagrant disregard of established rules. The Court found no evidence of corrupt motive or willful intent to violate procurement laws on the part of the respondents. Their actions were undertaken in response to a perceived urgent public need for the festival, following the directives of their superior who had secured higher-level approval for the negotiated procurement.
While the respondents were negligent in proceeding without a certification of availability of funds—a procedural lapse—this did not amount to the deliberate flouting of rules characteristic of Grave Misconduct. The project was ultimately completed, and public funds were properly applied upon the release of the SARO. Therefore, their actions constituted Simple Neglect of Duty, defined as the failure to give proper attention to a task expected of an employee, resulting from carelessness or indifference. The penalty imposed by the CA for this lesser offense was thus appropriate.