GR 241152; (March, 2020) (Digest)
G.R. No. 241152 , March 09, 2020
Don Antonio Marie V. Abogado, Petitioner, vs. Office of the Ombudsman and Task Force Abono – Field Investigation Office, Respondents.
FACTS
This case stemmed from a Complaint filed by the Field Investigation Office (FIO) charging several officials of the Province of Isabela, including petitioner Don Antonio Marie V. Abogado, with Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. The charges arose from alleged irregularities in the implementation of the Ginintuang Masaganang Ani (GMA) Program of the Department of Agriculture (DA). The Province of Isabela received ₱23,000,000.00 under the program. The complaint pertained to the purchase of four units of Massey Ferguson Model 445 farm tractors and four units of ACT Trailing Harrow Model 20×24 from Equity Machineries, Inc. for ₱8,009,745.45. The FIO alleged irregularities, including that the purchase was made through direct contracting instead of public bidding, that the alleged public bidding was conducted on March 18, 2004, prior to the execution of the Memorandum of Agreement and the receipt of funds, and that no authenticated bidding documents were submitted. Petitioner, a member of the Pre-Qualification, Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC), defended himself by asserting that the March 18, 2004 bidding was for a different project (the Grains Highway Project) and not for the GMA Program, and that he did not conspire with his co-respondents.
ISSUE
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding petitioner guilty of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and imposing upon him the penalty of dismissal from service with its accessory penalties.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the Order of the Office of the Ombudsman. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman’s findings were supported by substantial evidence, including the Certification dated March 30, 2004 issued by the PBAC (of which petitioner was a member) which stated that a public bidding was conducted on March 18, 2004 for the procurement of land preparation equipment under the GMA Program, and that the award was given to Equity Machineries. The Court held that the Ombudsman correctly concluded that the respondents, including petitioner, exhibited evident bad faith, manifest partiality, and gross inexcusable negligence by failing to conduct a public bidding as required by Republic Act No. 9184 , thereby giving unwarranted benefit to Equity Machineries. The penalty of dismissal from service with cancellation of civil service eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification from holding public office, and bar from taking civil service examinations was correctly imposed under the relevant civil service rules.