G.R. No. 237530. November 29, 2021.
ALAN LA MADRID PURISIMA, PETITIONER, VS. GLENN GERARD C. RICAFRANCA AND THE FACT-FINDING INVESTIGATION BUREAU – OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE MILITARY AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICES (FFIB-MOLEO), RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

On May 25, 2011, Werfast Documentary Agency, Inc. (Werfast) proposed to the Philippine National Police (PNP) an online renewal and courier delivery system for firearm licenses. The Firearms and Explosives Office (FEO) Chief signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with Werfast on the same date. The MOA stated Werfast would provide courier services, donate equipment, and that the agreement was under the context of accreditation without exclusivity. A Technical Working Group and the PNP Office of Legal Services (OLS) studied the proposal. The OLS opined it was legally permissible either as a build-operate-transfer agreement or an accreditation system, advising that under accreditation, it should not be exclusive to Werfast and other capable entities should be welcomed. The MOA was approved by the PNP Chief in August 2011. In February 2013, then PNP Acting Chief Alan La Madrid Purisima (petitioner) received a memorandum from Director Gil Meneses recommending the mandatory delivery of firearms licenses to registered addresses. The memorandum stated that in compliance with petitioner’s policy guidance to implement delivery, the FEO had accredited Werfast after it complied with documentary requirements. Petitioner approved the recommendation on February 17, 2013. Administrative complaints were filed against petitioner and others. The Office of the Ombudsman found petitioner guilty of Grave Abuse of Authority, Grave Misconduct, and Serious Dishonesty. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Ombudsman’s finding that petitioner is guilty of Grave Abuse of Authority, Grave Misconduct, and Serious Dishonesty.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution. The Court held that substantial evidence supports the Ombudsman’s findings. Petitioner committed Grave Abuse of Authority by giving unwarranted benefits to Werfast. His approval of the mandatory courier service policy, based on a memorandum that inaccurately stated the accreditation was in compliance with his prior guidance, effectively granted Werfast a monopoly without public bidding and despite its lack of legal qualifications (e.g., a valid Certificate of Accreditation from the Department of Transportation and Communications and a congressional franchise). This constituted a manifestly partial, malicious, and unjust exercise of authority. Petitioner committed Grave Misconduct, as his actions constituted a flagrant disregard of established rules (including procurement laws and PNP internal procedures) and were motivated by a wrongful intention to benefit Werfast. The Court also found petitioner guilty of Serious Dishonesty for making a false statement in his counter-affidavit by claiming he had no prior knowledge of Werfast before the February 2013 memorandum, when evidence showed he had presided over a command conference where Werfast’s proposal was discussed in 2011. The penalties of dismissal, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification from public office were upheld. The Court noted that while petitioner’s length of service and awards were commendable, they were outweighed by the gravity of the offenses, which involved a breach of public trust and gross disregard of legal rules designed to protect public interest.