G.R. No. 236383, June 14, 2021
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, PETITIONER, VS. MARILYN H. CELIZ AND LUVISMINDA H. NARCISO, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

The case involves the administrative liability of Marilyn H. Celiz and Luvisminda H. Narciso, who were the Vice-Chairman and a Provisional Member, respectively, of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Region VI. They were charged with Grave Misconduct in connection with the procurement for an asphalt overlay project in Iloilo City with an estimated cost of P54,500,000.00. The project was proposed to be implemented through negotiated procurement justified by its urgency for the upcoming Dinagyang Festival. The DPWH Secretary approved the request for negotiated procurement. The BAC, including respondents, approved resolutions recommending direct negotiation and the award of the contract to International Builders’ Corporation (IBC), despite a certification showing no available funds, Sub-Allotment Release Order (SARO), or Sub-Allotment Advice (SAA) for the project at the time. The Notice of Award was later issued, and a contract was executed after the SARO was approved. The Office of the Ombudsman found respondents guilty of Grave Misconduct and dismissed them from service. The Court of Appeals modified this to Simple Misconduct and imposed a one-month and one-day suspension. The Supreme Court, in a Decision dated June 26, 2019, reversed the CA and reinstated the penalty of dismissal with accessory penalties. Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing, among others, that the penalty was too harsh given their length of service and first offense, and that the ruling should be consistent with Ombudsman v. Asis, a case involving the same project where the principal officials were only suspended.

ISSUE

Whether the Court Decision dated June 26, 2019 should be reconsidered, particularly regarding the penalty imposed on respondents.

RULING

The Motion for Reconsideration is partly meritorious. The Supreme Court reconsidered its earlier Decision and reduced the penalty. While it upheld the finding of Grave Misconduct against respondents, it considered the mitigating circumstances of their length of government service (43 years for Narciso and 34 years for Celiz), untarnished service records, and status as first-time offenders. The Court also emphasized the need for consistency with its ruling in Ombudsman v. Asis, which involved the same factual milieu and project, where the principal officials were meted the penalty of one-year suspension without pay despite a finding of Grave Misconduct. The Court held it would be unjust to impose a graver penalty (dismissal) on the respondents than on the more principally involved officials in the Asis case. Consequently, the penalty was reduced from dismissal to suspension of one (1) year without pay, with a stern warning.