G.R. No. 253448, January 22, 2024
MARK FRANKLIN A. LIM II, PETITIONER, VS. FIELD INVESTIGATION BUREAU, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE MILITARY AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICES [MOLEO], RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Mark Franklin A. Lim II, Head of the Coast Guard Special Service Office (CGSSO) for the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG), was administratively charged with serious dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The charges stemmed from a 2014 Special Cash Advance (SCA) of PHP 500,000.00 released to him as a Special Disbursing Officer (SDO) for the procurement of office supplies and IT equipment. The Commission on Audit (COA) issued an Audit Observation Memorandum noting deficiencies: the cash advances lacked requisite office orders designating the SDOs; some supplier addresses were missing from invoices and receipts; and some suppliers denied issuing said documents. The Field Investigation Bureau (FIB) alleged Lim disbursed the amount without a supporting office order designating him as SDO and that the procurement did not go through public bidding without proper justification. Lim defended himself by presenting Special Order No. 48 dated March 18, 2013, designating him as SDO authorized for up to PHP 500,000.00. He claimed only PHP 77,166.25 was supported by questionable receipts, which he had settled, and justified the emergency procurement due to relief operations after Typhoon Yolanda. The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices (OMB-MOLEO) found him guilty and imposed the penalty of dismissal, which the Court of Appeals affirmed.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the OMB-MOLEO’s finding that Lim is guilty of serious dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

RULING

The petition is partly meritorious. The Court affirmed with modification the finding of administrative liability against Lim. The Court found that the OMB-MOLEO and the CA misapprehended the facts regarding Lim’s designation as an SDO. Special Order No. 48 constituted written authority designating him as SDO, entrusting him with PHP 500,000.00. Therefore, he did not disburse funds without authority. However, the Court upheld the finding that the procurement violated Republic Act No. 9184 (the Government Procurement Reform Act). Lim failed to substantiate his claim of emergency procurement justified by Typhoon Yolanda relief operations. He did not present evidence showing an immediate and urgent need for the specific office supplies and IT equipment procured, nor did he demonstrate that the procurement paid the lowest or most advantageous price. His defense that the duty to conduct public bidding fell on his superiors was unavailing, as he, as the SDO and head of the procuring unit, was responsible for ensuring compliance with procurement rules. This failure to comply with procurement laws and rules constituted simple neglect of duty, not the more serious charges of grave misconduct, serious dishonesty, or conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Consequently, the Court modified the penalty from dismissal to a suspension of six (6) months and one (1) day for simple neglect of duty.