G.R. No. 244042 , G.R. No. 244043, G.R. No. 243644, March 18, 2021
Hyacinth N. Grageda, Petitioner, vs. Fact-Finding Investigation Bureau, Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices, Respondents. / Igmedio U. Bondoc, Jr., Petitioner, vs. Fact-Finding Investigation Bureau, Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices, Respondents. / FCInsp. Joseph Reylito S. Espiritu, FINSP. Allan L. Magayanes, SPO2 Janette A. Alcantara and SFO1 Maria A. Gongona a.k.a. SFO1 Maria Luisa R. Gongona, Petitioners, vs. Office of the Ombudsman, Respondent.

FACTS

The consolidated petitions stem from an Affidavit-Complaint filed by the Fact-Finding Investigation Bureau, Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and other Law Enforcement Offices (FFIB-MOLEO) regarding alleged irregularities in the procurement of firefighting hoses by petitioners as officers of the Bureau of Fire Protection, Regional Office 5 (BFP-RO5). The Invitation to Bid specified two lots: Lot A for 190 pieces of 1 1/2″ hoses and Lot B for 154 pieces of 2 1/2″ hoses. During a pre-bid conference, it was agreed that bidders should maximize the quantity of items based on the approved budget, with the lowest bid determined per unit price. Petitioner Grageda issued Addendum No. 01 to amend the bid documents accordingly. Only two bidders participated: 911 Alarm, Inc. and Den-Tronix Internationale Trading. The Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) declared Den-Tronix’s bid non-responsive for failing to include the Project Reference Number in its Bid Security, while 911 Alarm’s bids were declared responsive. 911 Alarm was awarded the contracts. For Lot A, the contract was for 232 pieces (42 more than the ITB quantity) of 1 1/2″ hoses. For Lot B, the contract was modified to 222 pieces of 1 1/2″ hoses and 34 pieces of 2 1/2″ hoses, altering the original specifications. The FFIB-MOLEO alleged irregularities: (1) the BAC failed to publish Addendum No. 01 as required by R.A. 9184; (2) the omission of the Project Reference Number was not a material violation to disqualify Den-Tronix; and (3) the BAC proceeded with procuring less-preferred 2 1/2″ hoses, causing potential government loss. The Office of the Ombudsman found probable cause for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 and found petitioners guilty of Grave Misconduct, imposing the penalty of dismissal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Ombudsman’s ruling.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman and the Court of Appeals correctly found petitioners guilty of Grave Misconduct and violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 based on the alleged irregularities in the procurement process.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petitions and affirmed the findings of the Office of the Ombudsman and the Court of Appeals. The Court held that petitioners committed Grave Misconduct. The failure to properly publish Addendum No. 01, which contained a substantial amendment requiring bidders to “maximize the quantity,” violated the mandatory posting requirements under R.A. 9184 and its Implementing Rules. Service by mail did not constitute compliance. The disqualification of Den-Tronix for a minor omission (lack of Project Reference Number in the Bid Security) was arbitrary, as the IRR of R.A. 9184 does not list this as a material violation. Furthermore, the post-award modification of Lot B’s specifications (changing the hose size and quantity) constituted a substantial alteration that defeated the purpose of public bidding. These acts, taken together, demonstrated a clear intent to violate procurement rules and rig the bidding in favor of 911 Alarm, constituting willful intent to violate the law or disregard established rules, which is essential for a finding of Grave Misconduct. The Court found substantial evidence to support the administrative finding and the finding of probable cause for the criminal charge.