G.R. No. 254125 . October 12, 2022
ROGELIM A. CABRALES AND NOE CABRIDO GOZALO, PETITIONERS, VS. THE OMBUDSMAN, NAHUM E. DOSDOS, PASCUAL R. PONGASE II, AND RAUL P. LLAGAS, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

The Municipality of Tukuran, Zamboanga del Sur, conducted a procurement for a motor grader. The purchase request specified the brand “Chenggong.” The Municipal Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) declared Ivan Carr Industrial Supply and Construction Inc. as the winning bidder. Private respondents filed a complaint, alleging irregularities. An NBI investigation found the bidding was rigged, citing violations: the brand specification in the request; publication of the Invitation to Bid only in a regional newspaper; the Municipality’s non-registration with the PhilGEPS; and Ivan Carr’s failure to submit numerous required eligibility and bid documents during post-qualification. The OMB found petitioners Rogelim A. Cabrales (BAC Member) and Noe C. Gozalo (Alternate BAC Chairperson) guilty of Grave Misconduct and ordered their dismissal.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the OMB’s administrative ruling. It rejected Gozalo’s defense of condonation, noting the doctrine applies only to elective officials reelected for a subsequent term, and Gozalo was not an elective official at the time of the offense. Both petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing they acted in good faith and that as an alternate member, Gozalo should not be held liable for acts occurring in the absence of his principal.

ISSUE

Whether petitioners Cabrales and Gozalo are administratively liable for Grave Misconduct in relation to the procurement irregularities.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the CA decision, finding petitioners liable only for Simple Misconduct. The legal logic proceeds from the definition and required proof for Grave Misconduct. Grave Misconduct requires a showing that the acts were corrupt, inspired by an intention to violate the law, or constituted a flagrant disregard of established rules. The Court found the OMB and CA correctly identified multiple procurement violations constituting misconduct. These violations—brand specification, improper publication, and the BAC’s failure to disqualify a bidder lacking required documents—collectively demonstrated a conscious disregard of procurement laws, prejudicing the government’s interest in a fair and competitive bidding process.
However, the Court held the element of corruption was not sufficiently proven. While the irregularities ensured the award to Ivan Carr, no direct evidence showed petitioners personally gained or were motivated by corrupt intent. The absence of a finding of overpricing further weakened the corruption charge. Thus, the acts constituted Simple Misconduct, not the grave degree. Regarding Gozalo’s liability as an alternate member, the Court clarified that under procurement rules, an alternate member assumes the principal’s functions and responsibilities when the principal is absent. His liability is not contingent on the principal’s presence but on his own participation in the BAC’s wrongful actions. Consequently, the Court imposed the penalty for Simple Misconduct. Since petitioners had already retired, the penalty of suspension was converted to a fine equivalent to six months’ salary, payable from their retirement benefits, with an admonition for future conduct.