GovCon Syllabus Part III

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS | SYLLABUS PART III III.

ARTICL ART ICLE E XI, 1987 1987 CONS CONSITU ITUTIO TION N (A PUBL PUBLIC IC OFFIC OFFICER ER IS A PUBL PUBLIC IC TRUST TRUST)) ARTICLE XI ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

Section 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must, at all times, be accountable to te people, ser!e tem "it utmost responsibility, inte#rity, loyalty, and efficiency$ act "it patriotism and %ustice, and lead modest li!es. Section &. Te President, te 'ice(President, te )embers of te Supreme Court, te )embers of te t e Co Cons nsti titu tuti tion onal al Co Commi mmiss ssion ions, s, an and d t te e *m *mbu buds dsma man n ma may y be re remo! mo!ed ed fr from om of offi fice ce on impeacment for, and con!iction of, culpable !iolation of te Constitution, treason, bribery, #raft and corruption, oter i# crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All oter public officers and employees may be remo!ed from office as pro!ided by la", but not by impeacment. Section +. 1- Te ouse of Representati!es sall a!e te e/clusi!e po"er to initiate all cases of impeacment. &- A !er &!erif ified ied compla complain intt fo forr im impe peac acm men entt ma may y be fi file led d by an any y )e )emb mber er of t te e o ous use e of Representati!es or by any citi0en upon a resolution or endorsement by any )ember tereof, "ic sall be included in te *rder of usiness "itin ten session days, and referred to te proper Committee Committee "iti "itin n tree session days terea tereafter. fter. Te Commit Committee, tee, after earin earin#, #, and by a ma%ority !ote of all its )embers, sall submit its report to te ouse "itin si/ty session days from suc referral, to#eter "it te correspondin# resolution. Te resolution sall be calendared for consideration by te ouse "itin ten session days from receipt tereof. +- A !ote of at least one(tird of all te )embers of te ouse sall be necessary eiter to affirm a fa!orable resolution "it te Articles of Impeacment of te Committee, or o!erride its contrary resolution. Te !ote of eac )ember sall be recorded. 2- In case te !erified complaint or resolution of impeacment is filed by at least one(tird of all te )embers of te ouse, te same sall constitute te Articles of Impeacment, and trial by te Senate sall fort"it proceed. 3- 4o impeacment proceedin#s sall be initiated a#ainst te same official more tan once "itin a period of one year. 5- Te Senate sall a!e te sole po"er to try and decide all cases of impeacment. 6en sittin# for tat pur purpos pose, e, te Senators Senators sa sall ll be on oat oat  or aff affirma irmatio tion. n. 6e 6en n te President President of te Pilippines is on trial, te Cief 7ustice of te Supreme Court sall preside, but sall not !ote. 4o person sall be con!icted "itout te concurrence of t"o(tirds of all te )embers of te Senate. 8- 7ud#ment in cases of impeacment sall not e/tend furter tan remo!al from office and dis9ualification to old any office under te Republic of te Pilippines, but te party con!icted sall ne!erteless be liable and sub%ect to prosecution, trial, and punisment, accordin# to la". :- Te Con#ress sall promul#ate its rules on impeacment to effecti!ely carry out te purpose of tis section. Section 2. Te present anti(#raft Section anti(#raft court ;no"n as te Sandi#anbayan Sandi#anbayan sall continue to functi function on and e/ercise its %urisdiction as no" or ereafter may be pro!ided by la". Section 3. Tere is ereby created te independent *ffice of te *mbudsman, composed of te *mbudsman *mbud sman to be ;no"n as Tanod Tanodbayan bayan,, one o!erall
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS | SYLLABUS PART III Constitution. Section :. Te *mbudsman and is . Te *mbudsman and is
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS | SYLLABUS PART III appropriations sall be automatically and re#ularly released. Section 13. Te ri#t of te State to reco!er properties unla"fully ac9uired by public officials or employees, from tem or from teir nominees or transferees, sall not be barred by prescription, laces, or estoppel. Section Sectio n 15. 4o loa loan, n, #ua #uaran ranty, ty, or ot oter er for form m of fin financ ancial ial acc accommo ommodat dation ion for any business business purpose may be #ranted, directly or indirectly, by any #o!ernment(o"ned or controlled ban; or financ fin ancial ial ins instit tituti ution on to te Pres Preside ident, nt, te 'ic 'ice(P e(Presi residen dent, t, te )emb )embers ers of te Cab Cabine inet, t, te Con#ress, te Supreme Court, and te Constitutional Commissions, te *mbudsman, or to any firm or entity in "ic tey a!e controllin# interest, durin# teir tenure. Section 18. A public officer or employee sall, upon assumption of office and as often tereafter as may be re9uired by la", submit a declaration under oat of is assets, liabilities, and net "ort. "or t. In te case of te Pre Presid sident ent,, te 'ice(Presi 'ice(Presiden dent, t, te )embers )embers of te Cabinet, Cabinet, te Con#ress, te Supreme Court, te Constitutional Commissions and oter constitutional offices, and officers of te armed forces "it #eneral or fla# ran;, te declaration sall be disclosed to te public in te manner pro!ided by la". Section 1:. Public officers and employees o"e te State and tis Constitution alle#iance at all times and any public officer or employee "o see;s to can#e is citi0ensip or ac9uire te status of an immi#rant of anoter country durin# is tenure sall be dealt "it by la".

Rele!ant 7urisprudence@ a- Amit !s. C*A, C*A, 5:5 5:5 SCRA SCRA 1> 1> &>1& &>1&-b- Se!ille Se!ille !s. !s. C*A, C*A, 5:5 SCRA SCRA &: &>1 &>1&&c- ?utierre0 ?utierre0 !s. ouse ouse of Representa Representati!es ti!es Committee Committee on 7ustice, 7ustice, ?.R. ?.R. 4o. 1=+23= 1=+23=,, 13 ebruary ebruary &>11 d- olast olasti# i# !s. Sandi Sandi#an #anbay bayan, an, &+3 &+3 SCRA SCRA 1>+ e- a%ardo a%ardo !s. *ffice *ffice of te *mbudsm *mbudsman, an, 58= 58= SCRA SCRA =8 &>1&&>1&f- >3 - a#on# a#on# Bapisanan Bapisanan !s. SCRA 152 &>1& &>1&-i- Coron Corona a !s. !s. Sena Senate te,, 585 585 SCRA SCRA 35+ 35+ &> &>1& 1&- %- )ontallana !s. *mbudsman, 58: SCRA SCRA 23: &>1&Republic of te Pilippines

SUPREME COURT )anila E4 A4C

G.R. No. 17617

No!"#$"% &, &1

EFREN G. AMIT, Petitioner, !s.

COMMISSION ON AU'IT, REGIONAL OFFICE NO. VI, OFFICE OF TE OMBU'SMAN (VISAYAS), *+ TE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, Respondents.
BRION, J.: efore us is a petition for re!ie" on certiorari1 certiorari 1 under Rule 23 of te Rules of Court assailin# te decision& decision & dated 7uly 1:, &>>5 and te resolution+ resolution + dated >5 of te Court of Appeals CA- in CA(?.R. CE(SP 4o. >1+=:, "ic affirmed te decision 2 dated 7uly =, &>>2 of te *ffice of te *mbuds *mbudsman man 'isa 'isayasyas- *mbud *mbudsmansman- in *)(' *)('IS(A< IS(A<)(&>> )(&>>1(>1 1(>1+8. +8. Te *mbuds *mbudsman man found petitioner Efren ?. Amit #uilty of fi!e counts of #ra!e misconduct and #ross disonesty for "ic e "as dismissed from te ser!ice, "it forfeiture of benefits and dis9ualification from oldin# public office.3 office. 3

Pa#e + of 25

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS | SYLLABUS PART III Te acts Te special audit results, conducted by te respondent Commission on Audit C*A- on te )ulti( Purpose ,>>>.>> on te part of te #o!ernment. &. Te construction of 1>1 )P
s9uare meters as per appro!ed plan and specifications of 1.>> on te part of te #o!ernment. +. Te cec;s representin# te reimbursement for te cost of materials for te construction of te )P
sic- of te Re!ised Penal Code. 2. Te supplies and materials for te construction of te )P
>(>8, and maintain a separate subsidiary led#er for eac #rantee$ +- Reimburse trou# full payment te actual e/penses incurred by te recipient for supplies and materials materials relati!e relati!e to te construct construction ion of te pa!ement pa!ement in te amount not e/ce e/ceedin edin# # P5>,>> P5> ,>>>.> >.>>, >, and pay paymen mentt sa sall ll be rele released ased onl only y upo upon n reci recipie pient nts s sub submis mission sion of off offici icial al receiptFs for actual e/penses incurred for supplies and materials$ 2- Prepare a montly report of disbur sement attested to by its resident auditor and submit te same to te
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS | SYLLABUS PART III - days from te si#nin# of te A#reement$ 3- )a;e a!ailable pro%ect records and related documents to te ,>>>.>>$ =- - RefundFreturn to te - Inspection report by te L? committee$ 11- )emorandum of A#reement$ 1&- T"o &- copies of pictures of te )P empasis ours-

Pa#e 3 of 25

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS | SYLLABUS PART III or te e/penses and cost of materials related to te 1==: )P

inspection of supplies and materials

from te

beneficiary farmers

:- Inspection report of all specified materials procured and deli!ered$ =- Certificate of final completion to be si#ned by te cairman of te farmers or#ani0ations or is duly autori0ed representati!es$ 1>- Re9uest from te beneficiary farmers or#ani0ations for inspection of completed pro%ects addressed to te - Re9uest issue slips$ 11- Suppliers official receipts$ 1&-
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS | SYLLABUS PART III 12- RAE?s Inspection reports as to 1>>J completion of pro%ects. Respondent Le#aspi, imself, admits tat te re9uirements e enumerated "ere not complied "it. In some !oucers, te si#natures of te H)CPI Cairmen and officers in te )emoranda of A#reement #reatly differ from te si#natures attributed to tem in te documents attaced to te !oucers, suc as te@ 1- Can!ass papers$ &- Abstracts of can!ass$ +- Reports of inspection$ 2- Certificates of acceptance$ 3- Ac;no"led#ment receipts$ and 5- Re9uisition and issue !oucer. Accordin# to te Cairmen and officers of some beneficiary cooperati!es, tey "ere #i!en sets of documents D )*A, can!ass papers, abstracts of can!ass, ac;no"led#ment receipts, inspection reports as to te deli!ery of materials, and certificates of acceptance of items deli!ered, by
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS | SYLLABUS PART III stipulated in te memoranda of a#reement co!erin# te sub%ect pro%ects. 6orse, altou# te !oucers and cec;s co!erin# te sub%ect )P
&(>+:=(? tat only A4- oter )P
Pa#e : of 25

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS | SYLLABUS PART III materials e/pense must be released trou# te issuance of Issue Slips, te issuance by respondent Amit of te Issue Slips of materials "ere intended to facilitate, as it facilitated, te disbursement and release of te misappropriated funds.12 empases ours Te Rule 2+ Petition "it te CA Tereafter, Amit filed a petition for re !ie" under Rule 2+ of te 1==8 Rules of Court "it te CA. Te CA denied te petition on te reasonin# tat te decision of te *mbudsman "as supported by substantial e!idence D i.e., affida!its, special audit report, and C*A inspection report D tat are entitled to #reat respect and credence. Te CA also ruled tat te appro!al of te issue slips of c onstruction materials for te )P

Pa#e = of 25

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS | SYLLABUS PART III documents "ere unnecessary. 6it Amits si#nin# of te documents, o"e!er, te immediate release of te funds "as facilitated. Tis indicates sortsi#tedness on te part of Amit "ic is so #ross tat it cannot be considered a result of indifference or carelessness. Amit simply failed to conduct imself in te manner e/pected of an occupant of a i# office. In oter "ords, e failed to act in accordance "it te demands of te responsibility tat attaces to te office e "as occupyin#. Second, te *mbudsmans findin# of conspiracy re!eals te crucial role "ic Amit played in te commission of fraud "it oter officials. Amits acts "ere one of te more, if not te most, indispensable, final, and operati!e acts tat ultimately led to te consummation of te fraud. 4o disbursement or release of #o!ernment funds could appen "itout Amits imprimatur. Amits participatory acts "ere, in oter "ords, of a de#ree tat teir absence could a!e pre!ented te completion of te acts complained of. Amits role in te committed irre#ularities so"s is concurrence D altou# based on circumstantial, not direct, e!idence D "it te oter officials ob%ecti!e to defraud te #o!ernment. Te irre#ularities "ill not see teir fruition if Amit and te oter officials in!ol!ed in te fraud did not consent to its implementation by ma;in# it appear tat tere "ere !alid re9uisitions, deli!eries, inspections, pre(auditin# and appro!al of te !oucers and cec;s paid to te contractorsFsuppliers. Tese acts pointed to one 1- criminal intent D "it one participant performin# a part of te transaction and te oters performin# oter parts of te same transaction to complete te "ole sceme, "it a !ie" of attainin# te ob%ect "ic tey "ere pursuin#. 1= In oter "ords, tere "as te re9uired concurrence of "ills supportin# te findin# of conspiracy, made more pronounced in te case of Amit because of is positions and peculiarly important role in te completion of te acts. Tird, Amits defense D te alle#ed reliance on te acts of is subordinates in #ood fait D is simply unacceptable. Public office is a public trust and public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to te people, ser!e tem "it utmost responsibility, inte#rity, loyalty and efficiency, act "it patriotism and %ustice and lead modest li!es.&> Tis i# constitutional standard of conduct is not intended to be mere retoric$ tose in te public ser!ice are en%oined to fully comply "it tis standard or run te ris; of facin# administrati!e sanctions ran#in# from reprimand to te e/treme penalty of dismissal from te ser!ice. As suc, Amit as te duty to super!ise is subordinates D e must see to it tat is subordinates a!e performed teir functions in accordance "it te la". 6e cannot allo" im to simply interpose tis defense, as e is precisely duty(bound to cec; "eter tese acts are re#ular, la"ful and !alid, and is full reliance on te acts of is subordinates is antitetical to te duties imposed by is position on tem. Te e/cuse or defense is totally unacceptable, too, #i!en tat te transaction relates to disbursement of public funds, o!er "ic #reat responsibility attaces. ourt, Amit did not "olly rely on te acts of is subordinates. As earlier mentioned, e performed functions usin# independent %ud#ment. Amit si#ned te issue slips despite te absence of some of te re9uired documents for te release of #o!ernment funds for te )P
of 25

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS | SYLLABUS PART III officer and not suc only as affects is caracter as a pri!ate indi!idual. In suc cases, it as been said at all times, it is necessary to separate te caracter of te man from te caracter of te officer / / / It is settled tat misconduct, misfeasance, or malfeasance "arrantin# remo!al from office of an officer must a!e direct relation to and be connected "it te performance of official duties amountin# eiter to maladministration or "illful, intentional ne#lect and failure to discar#e te duties of te office.&2 empasis and italics ours6e declared in *ffice of te *mbudsman !. Apolonio&3 tat Gif a ne/us bet"een te public officers acts and functions is establised, suc act is properly referred to as misconduct.G Amits acts "ere "ell "itin te scope of is functions. Tere is no doubt tat is inability to li!e up to te standards so imposed on im in te performance of is duties is misconduct. In tis case, te misconduct cannot be considered simple misconduct$ it is #ra!e misconduct, considerin# te presence of te 9ualifyin# elements of corrupt moti!e and fla#rant disre#ard of te rules ta;en from a collecti!e consideration of te circumstances of te case. 6ERE*RE, premises considered, "e
Republic of te Pilippines


G.R. No. 17767 &1

No!"#$"% &,

SONIA V. SEVILLE, Petitioner, !s.

COMMISSION ON AU'IT, R"-o*/ O00" VI, I/o/o C23, Respondent.
ABA', J.: Tis case pro!ides "at it ta;es to ma;e a #o!ernment official or employee liable for #ost pro%ects. Te acts and te Case Te Commission on Audit C*A- Re#ional *ffice 'I administrati!ely car#ed 11 officials and employees of te , 1===, it "as disco!ered tat se si#ned a #ost )P
suc pro%ects tat "ere sub%ect of te audit. Se si#ned te disbursement !oucer, as re9uired by )emorandum *rder 1>2, Series of 1==:, in !ie" of te absence of te Re#ional
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS | SYLLABUS PART III proof tat se too; part in a conspiracy to defraud te #o!ernment. In its >2, & o"e!er, te *ffice of 12=&. *n 7uly &>, &>>5 te CA rendered a decision, + oldin# tat er failure to !erify te correctness and sufficiency of te documents presented to er for si#nin# led to te unre9uited disbursement of public funds. Se filed a motion for reconsideration but te CA denied te same, ence, tis petition for re!ie". Te Issue Presented Te sole issue in tis case is "eter or not te CA correctly affirmed te *mbudsmans decision tat found petitioner liable for #ra!e misconduct and #ross disonesty for si#nin# te disbursement !oucer for te particular #ost )P
Tere bein# no a##ra!atin# or miti#atin# circumstances, Section 32b- of te niform Rules on Administrati!e Cases in te Ci!il Ser!ice pro!ides tat te medium of te penalty sould be imposed. As for te offense of #ross disonesty, te Court also clears petitioner from liability. 1âwphi1 er participation in te release of funds is brou#t upon by er *IC desi#nation and not spurred by corrupt intent. A post(ar!est facility suc as )P

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS | SYLLABUS PART III 12=& dated 7uly &>, &>>5. In its place, te Court I4


G.R. No. 19459 8, &11

M%

MA. MERCE'ITAS N. GUTIERRE Petitioner, !s.

TE OUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON USTICE, RISA ONTIVEROS BARA:UEL, 'ANILO '. LIM, FELIPE PESTA;O, EVELYN PESTA;O, RENATO M. REYES, R., SECRETARY GENERAL OF BAGONG ALYANSANG MAS LA?YERS (NUPL)= FER'INAN' R. GAITE, CAIRPERSON, CONFE'ERATION FOR UNITY, RECOGNITION AN' A'VANCEMENT OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES (COURAGE)= *+ AMES TERRY RI'ON OF TE LEAGUE OF FILIPINO STU'ENTS (LFS), Respondents. FELICIANO BELMONTE, R., Respondent(Inter!enor. RES*LTI*4

CARPIO MORALES, J.: or resolution is petitioners G)otion for Reconsideration of te 11-G dated ebruary &3, &>11 )otion-. pon e/amination of te a!erments in te )otion, te Court finds neiter substantial nor co#ent reason to reconsider its
I Contrary to petitioners assertion tat te Court sarply de!iated from te rulin# in rancisco, 7r. !. Te ouse of Representati!es,1 te 11 reaffirmed and illuminated te Francisco doctrine in li#t of te particular facts of te present case. To ar#ue, as petitioner does, tat tere ne!er "as a simultaneous referral of t"o impeacment complaints as tey "ere actually referred to te committee Gseparately, one after te oterG & is to dismantle er o"n interpretation of Francisco tat te one(year bar is to be rec;oned from te filin# of te impeacment complaint. Petitioners )otion concedes+ tat te Francisco doctrine on te initiation of an impeacment proceedin# includes te ouses initial action on te complaint. y reco#ni0in# te le#al import of a referral, petitioner abandons er earlier claim tat per Francisco an impeacment proceedin# is initiated by te mere filin# of an impeacment complaint. a!in# uprooted er reliance on te Francisco case in proppin# er position tat te initiation of an impeacment proceedin# must be rec;oned from te filin# of te complaint, petitioner insists on Pa#e 1+ of 25

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS | SYLLABUS PART III actual initiation and not Gconstructi!e initiation by le#al fictionG as a!erred by 7ustice Adolfo A0cuna in is separate opinion in Francisco . In 7ustice A0cunas opinion "ic concurred "it te ma%ority, "at e similarly found untenable "as te stretcin# of te rec;onin# point of initiation to te time tat te Committee on 7ustice te Committee- report reaces te floor of te ouse.2 4otably, te pro!isions of te Impeacment Rules of te 1&t Con#ress tat "ere successfully callen#ed in Francisco pro!ided tat an impeacment proceedin# "as to be Gdeemed initiatedG upon te Committees findin# of sufficiency of substance or upon te ouses affirmance or o!erturnin# of te Committees findin#, 3 "ic "as clearly referred to as te instances Gpresumably for internal purposes of te ouse, as to te timin# of some of its internal action on certain rele!ant matters.G5
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS | SYLLABUS PART III Ironically, petitioner also offers te Court "it !arious possibilities and !i!id scenarios to #rimly illustrate er percei!ed oppression. And er o"n mistrust leads er to find inade9uate te e/istence of te pertinent constitutional pro!isions, and to entertain doubt on Gte respect for and aderence of te ouse and te respondent committee to te same.G= 6ile petitioner concedes tat tere is a frame"or; of safe#uards for impeacable officers laid do"n in Article XI of te Constitution, se do"nplays tese layers of protection as illusory or inutile "itout implementation and enforcement, as if tese can be disre#arded at "ill. 1a$$phi1 Contrary to petitioners position tat te Cour t left in te ands of te ouse te 9uestion as to "en an impeacment proceedin# is initiated, te Court merely underscored te ouses conscious role in te initiation of an impeacment proceedin#. Te Court added notin# ne" in pinpointin# te ob!ious rec;onin# point of initiation in li#t of te Francisco doctrine. )oreo!er, referral of an impeacment complaint to te appropriate committee is already a po"er or function #ranted by te Constitution to te ouse. Petitioner #oes on to ar#ue tat te ouse as no discretion on te matter of referral of an impeacment complaint and tat once filed, an impeacment complaint sould, as a matter of course, be referred to te Committee. Te ouse cannot indeed re fuse to refer an impeacment complaint tat is filed "itout a subsistin# bar. To refer an impeacment complaint "itin an e/istin# one(year bar, o"e!er, is to commit te apparently unconstitutional act of initiatin# a second impeacment proceedin#, "ic may be struc; do"n under Rule 53 for #ra!e abuse of discretion. It bears recallin# tat te one(year bar rule itself is a constitutional limitation on te ouses po"er or function to refer a complaint. Tac;lin# on te ouse floor in its order of business a clearly constitutionally(proibited second impeacment complaint on te matter of "eter to ma;e te appropriate referral #oes precisely into te propriety of te referral and not on te merits of te complaint. Te ouse needs only to ascertain te e/istence or e/piry of te constitutional ban of one year, "itout any re#ard to te claims set fort in te complaint. To petitioner, te inter!enin# days from te filin# of te complaint to "ate!er completes te initiation of an impeacment proceedin# is immaterial in miti#atin# te influ/ of successi!e complaints since allo"in# multiple impeacment car#es "ould result to te same arassment and oppression. Se particularly cites Constitutional Commissioner Ricardo Romulos concerns on te amount of time spent if Gmultiple impeacment car#esG1> are allo"ed. Se fails, o"e!er, to establis "eter Commissioner Romulo limited or 9uantified is reference to not more tan one complaint or car#e. I4 S), te Court did not de!iate from, as it did apply te t"in rule of filin# and referral in te present case, "it Francisco as te #uidin# li#t. Petitioner refuses to see te oter alf of tat li#t, o"e!er.

II Petitioner, mean"ile, reiterates er ar#ument tat promul#ation means publication. Se a#ain cites er tesis tat Common"ealt Act 4o. 5+:, Article & of te Ci!il Code, and te t"o TaNada !. Tu!era11 cases mandate tat te Impeacment Rules be publised for effecti!ity. Petitioner raises notin# ne" to can#e te Courts stance on te matter. To reiterate, "en te Constitution uses te "ord Gpromul#ate,G it does not necessarily mean to publis in te *fficial ?a0ette or in a ne"spaper of #eneral circulation. Promul#ation, as used in Section +:-, Article XI of te Constitution, suitably ta;es te meanin# of Gto ma;e ;no"nG as it sould be #enerally understood. Petitioner continues to misapply N#ri $" S#nat# Co!!itt## on Acco%nta&iit' of P%&ic Offic#rs an( In$#stigations 1& "ere te Court noted tat te Constitution unmista;ably re9uires te publication of rules of procedure pertainin# to in9uiries in aid of le#islation. If te Constitution "arranted te publication of Impeacment Rules, ten it could a!e e/pediently indicated suc re9uirement as it did in te case of le#islati!e in9uiries. Te Constitution clearly #i!es te ouse a "ide discretion on o" to effecti!ely promul#ate its Pa#e 13 of 25

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS | SYLLABUS PART III Impeacment Rules. It is not for tis Court to tell a co(e9ual branc of #o!ernment on o" to do so "en suc prero#ati!e is lod#ed e/clusi!ely "it it. Still, petitioner ar#ues tat te Court erred "en it ruled tat Gto re9uire publication of te ouse Impeacment Rules "ould only delay te impeacment proceedin#s and cause te ouse of Representati!es to !iolate constitutionally mandated periodsOG Se insists tat te Committee, after publisin# te Impeacment Rules, "ould still a!e a remainder of 23 days out of te 5>(day period "itin "ic to finis its business. Petitioner is mista;en in er assertion. 4ote tat te Court discussed te abo!e(mentioned scenario only Gin cases "ere impeacment complaints are filed at te start of eac Con#ress.G Section +, Article XI of te Constitution contains rele!ant self(e/ecutin# pro!isions "ic must be obser!ed at te start of te impeacment process, te promul#ation of te Impeacment Rules not"itstandin#. Petitioner reases er alle#ations of bias and !indicti!eness on te part of te Committee Cairperson, Rep. 4iel Tupas, 7r. Met a#ain, te supposed actuations of Rep. Tupas parta;e of a ;een performance of is a!o"ed duties and responsibilities as te desi#nated mana#er of tat pase in te impeacment proceedin#. esides, te actions ta;en by te Committee "ere ne!er its Cairpersons sole act but rater te collecti!e underta;in# of its "ole 33(person membersip. Te Committee members e!en too; to !otin# amon# temsel!es to !alidate "at actions to ta;e on te motions presented to te Committee. Indubitably, an impeacment is not a %udicial proceedin#, but rater a political e/ercise. Petitioner tus cannot demand tat te Court apply te strin#ent standards it as;s of %ustices and %ud#es "en it comes to inibition from earin# cases. Incidentally, te Impeacment Rules do not pro!ide for any pro!ision re#ardin# te inibition of te Committee cairperson or any member from participatin# in an impeacment proceedin#. Te Committee may tus direct any 9uestion of partiality to"ards te concerned member only. And any decision on te matter of inibition must be respected, and it is not for tis Court to interfere "it tat decision. E/cept for te constitutionally mandated periods, te pacin# or alle#ed precipitate aste "it "ic te impeacment proceedin# a#ainst petitioner is conducted is beyond te Courts control. A#ain, impeacment is a i#ly politici0ed intramural tat #i!es te ouse ample le# room to operate, sub%ect only to te constitutionally imposed limits.1+ And beyond tese, te Court is duty(bound to respect te discretion of a co(e9ual branc of #o!ernment on matters "ic "ould effecti!ely carry out its constitutional mandate. I4ALLM, te Court as, in its ebruary 13, &>11 1> Status uo Ante *rder12 "ic, as said *rder clearly stated, "as Geffecti!e immediately and continuin# until furter orders from tis Court.G13 Suc Gfurter orderG points to tat part of te disposition in te ebruary 13, &>11 11
SO OR'ERE'.


SUPREME COURT )anila SEC*4<
G.R. No. 11&&4 1995

A@-@2 5, Pa#e 15 of 25

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS | SYLLABUS PART III ANTONIO M. BOLASTIG, petitioner, !s.

ON. SAN'IGANBAYAN (T%+ '!o*) *+ TE PEOPLE OF TE PILIPPINES, respondents. Pangani&an) B#nit#*) Para(#) Africa + Barinaga Law Offic# ,Pa&aw- for p#tition#r"

MEN'OA, J.: Tis is a petition for c#rtiorari to set aside te resolution, dated )arc 1:, 1==+, of te Sandi#anbayan, #rantin# te motion of te Special Prosecution *fficer to suspend te accused from office p#n(#nt# it# and te resolution, dated )arc &=, 1==+, denyin# reconsideration of te first resolution. Petitioner Antonio ). olasti# is #o!ernor of Samar. *n Au#ust +1, 1=:=, an information "as filed a#ainst im and t"o oters for alle#ed o!erpricin# of 1>> reams of onion s;in paper in !iolation of te Anti(?raft and Corrupt Practices Act Republic Act 4o. +>1=-. Te Information alle#ed@ Tat on or about 7une &2, 1=:5, in te )unicipality of Catbalo#an, Samar, Pilippines, and "itin te %urisdiction of tis onorable Court, te abo!e(named accused A4T*4I* ). *LASTI?, PE>- reams of *nion S;in si0e 11G / 18G at a unit price of i!e undred ifty pesos P33>.>>- or a total price of ifty(i!e Tousand Pesos P33,>>>.>>-, "ic contract "as manifestly and #rossly disad!anta#eous to te #o!ernment as te pre!ailin# unit price for said item "as only ifty(i!e Pesos P33.>>- or a total price of i!e Tousand i!e undred Pesos P3,3>>.>>-, tereby causin# undue in%ury to te #o!ernment in te total amount of orty(4ine Tousand i!e undred Peso s P2=,3>>.>>-. C*4TRARM T* LA6. Petitioner "as arrai#ned on 7anuary 3, 1==+, "ereupon e entered a plea of Gnot #uilty.G *n 7anuary &3, 1==+, Special Prosecution *fficer III 6ilfredo *rencia mo!ed for petitioners suspension, citin# sec. 1+ of Republic Act 4o. +>1= "ic pro!ides in part@ Sec. 1+. S%sp#nsion an( oss of &#n#fits . Q Any incumbent public officer a#ainst "om any criminal prosecution under a !alid information under tis Act or under Title 8, oo; II of te Re!ised Penal Code or for any offense in!ol!in# fraud upon #o!ernment or public funds or property, "eter as a simple or as a comple/ offense and in "ate!er sta#e of e/ecution and mode of participation, is pendin# in court, sall be suspended from office. Petitioner opposed te motion, ar#uin# int#r aia tat@ &. pon a bare in!ocation of te fore#oin# pro!ision, te prosecution "ould a!e tis onorable Court issue an *rder suspendin# te accused, as if suspension of a public officer is a mindless and meanin#less e/ercise, and is imposed "itout re#ard to te spirit and intent of te la" upon "ic it is based. +. Indeed, it cannot be simply assumed tat la"s are enacted and follo"ed witho%t a partic%ar p%rpos# to &# s#r$#( , especially "en a mecanical application sall in%ure not only te public official concerned, but te entire electorate as "ell. 1 Te Sandi#anbayan re%ected petitioners ar#ument and ordered te suspension of petitioner from office for a period of => days. It eld tat pre!enti!e suspension is mandatory under sec. 1+, of Rep. Pa#e 18 of 25

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS | SYLLABUS PART III Act 4o. +>1=, pursuant to "ic all tat is re9uired is for te court to ma;e a findin# tat te accused stands car#ed under a !alid information Gfor any of te abo!e(described crimes for te purpose of #rantin# or denyin# te sou#t for suspension.G& Implementation of te resolution "as eld in abeyance to allo" petitioner to file a motion for reconsideration, "ic te Sandi#anbayan, o"e!er, e!entually denied on )arc &=, 1==+. ence, tis petition. It is contended tat te Sandi#anbayan committed a #ra!e abuse of its discretion in issuin# its resolution a- despite te failure of te prosecution to so" any public interest to be ser!ed, or in%ury to be pre!ented, or any oter compellin# factual circumstance "ic %ustifies te pre!enti!e suspension of petitioner$ and b- despite te in%ury not only upon petitioner but also upon te people of Samar "ose political ri#ts are trenced upon by te suspension for no !alid reason of teir duly elected ?o!ernor. To te Solicitor ?enerals contention tat upon te filin# of a !alid information suspension p#n(#nt# it# is mandatory as eld in se!eral decisions of tis Court,+ petitioner replies tat, "ile te Sandi#anbayan as te po"er to order pre!enti!e suspension, tere is a Gneed Hfor te Sandi#anbayan to #o furter, beyond te filin# of te information, to a determination of te necessity of te pre!enti!e suspension in accordance "it te spirit and intent of te Anti(?raft La".G Petitioner e/plains@ In oter "ords, "en te Anti(?raft La" #a!e te courts te autority to order te pre!enti!e suspension of te accused, it ne!er intended to impose a mindless and meanin#less e/ercise. Te e/ercise of suc autority must al"ays be "itin te confines of te le#islati!e intent, for to #o beyond it "ould be to e/ceed te bounds of te la". Pre!enti!e suspension sould terefore be ordered only "en te le#islati!e purpose is acie!ed, tat is, "en Gte suspension order . . . pre!ents- te accused from usin# is office to influence potential "itnesses or tamper "it records "ic may be !ital in te prosecution of te case a#ainst im.G Corollarily, "en te le#islati!e purpose is not acie!ed, pre!enti!e suspension is improper and sould not be decreed.G2 Te petitioners contention as no merit. It is no" settled tat sec. 1+ of Republic Act 4o. +>1= ma;es it mandatory for te Sandi#anbayan to suspend any public officer a#ainst "om a !alid information car#in# !iolation of tat la", oo; II, Title 8 of te Re!ised Penal Code, or any offense in!ol!in# fraud upon #o!ernment or public funds or property is filed. 3 Te court tryin# a case as neiter discretion nor duty to determine "eter pre!enti!e suspension is re9uired to pre!ent te accused from usin# is office to intimidate "itnesses or frustrate is prosecution or continue committin# malfeasance in office. Te presumption is tat unless te accused is suspended e may frustrate is prosecution or commit furter acts of malfeasance or do bot, in te same "ay tat upon a findin# tat tere is probable cause to belie!e tat a crime as been committed and tat te accused is probably #uilty tereof, te la" re9uires te %ud#e to issue a "arrant for te arrest of te accused. Te la" does not re9uire te court to determine "eter te accused is li;ely to escape or e!ade te %urisdiction of te court. It is indeed true tat in some of our decisions 5 te e/pression Gte ma/imum period of ninety =>daysG is used. ut tat is only for te purpose of empasi0in# tat te pre!enti!e suspension terein in!ol!ed, "ic "ere for more tan ninety =>- days, "ere e/cessi!e and unreasonable. It is to be noted tat te ninety(day period of pre!enti!e suspension is not found in sec. 1+ of Republic Act 4o. +>1= but "as adopted from sec. 2& of te Ci!il Ser!ice 8-, 8 "ic is no" sec. 3& of te Administrati!e Code of 1=:8. Tis latter pro!ision states@ Sec. 3&. Lifting of Pr#$#nti$# S%sp#nsion P#n(ing A(!inistrati$# In$#stigation . Q 6en te administrati!e case a#ainst te officer or employee under pre!enti!e suspension is not finally decided by te disciplinin# autority "itin te period of ninety =>- days after te date of suspension of te respondent "o is not a presidential appointee, te respondent sall be automatically reinstated in te ser!ice@ Pro$i(#( , Tat "en te

Pa#e 1: of 25

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS | SYLLABUS PART III delay in te disposition of te case is due to te fault, ne#li#ence or petition of te respondent, te period of delay sall not be counted in computin# te period of suspension erein pro!ided. Te duration of pre!enti!e suspension is tus coe!al "it te period prescribed for decidin# administrati!e disciplinary cases. If te case is decided before ninety days, ten te suspension "ill last less tan ninety days, but if te case is not decided "itin ninety days, ten te pre!enti!e suspension must be up to ninety days only. Similarly, as applied to criminal prosecutions under Republic Act 4o. +>1=, pre!enti!e suspension "ill last for less tan ninety days only if te case is decided "itin tat period$ oter"ise, it "ill continue for ninety days. Te duration of pre!enti!e suspension "ill, terefore, !ary to te e/tent tat it is contin#ent on te time it ta;es te court to decide te case but not on account of any discretion lod#ed in te court, ta;in# into account te probability tat te accused may use is office to amper is prosecution. Indeed, "ere te Sandi#anbayan #i!en te discretion to impose a sorter period of suspension, say, :>, 8> or 5> days, as petitioner asserts, it "ould lie in its po"er not to suspend te accused at all. Tat, of course, "ould be contrary to te command of sec. 1+ of Republic Act 4o. +>1=. *ur oldin# tat, upon te filin# of a !alid information car#in# !iolation of Republic Act 4o. +>1=, oo; II, Title 8 of te Re!ised Penal Code, or fraud upon #o!ernment or public property, it is te duty of te court to place te accused under pre!enti!e suspension disposes of petitioners oter contention tat since te trial in te Sandi#anbayan is no" o!er "it respect to te presentation of e!idence for te prosecution tere is no lon#er any dan#er tat petitioner "ould intimidate prosecutions "itnesses. Te fact is tat te possibility tat te accused "ould intimidate "itnesses or oter"ise amper is prosecution is %ust one of te #rounds for pre!enti!e suspension. Te oter one is, as already stated, to pre!e nt te accused from committin# furter acts of malfeasance "ile in office. inally, te fact tat petitioners pre!enti!e suspension may depri!e te people of Samar of te ser!ices of an official elected by tem, at least temporarily, is not a sufficient basis for reducin# "at is oter"ise a mandatory period prescribed by la". Te !ice #o!ernor, "o as li;e"ise been elected by tem, "ill act as #o!ernor.: Indeed, e!en te Constitution autori0es te suspension for not more tan si/ty days of members of Con#ress found #uilty of disorderly bea!ior, = tus re%ectin# te !ie" e/pressed in one case1> tat members of te le#islature could not be suspended because in te case of suspension, unli;e in te case of remo!al, te seat remains filled but te constituents are depri!ed of representation. or te fore#oin# reasons, "e old tat in orderin# te pre!enti!e suspension of petitioner, te Sandi#anbayan acted accordin# to la". 6ERE*RE, te Petition for C#rtiorari is

SUPREME COURT )anila

FIRST 'IVISION G.R. No. 17468 4, &1

A@-@2

ERNESTO A. FAAR'O, Petitioner, !s.

OFFICE OF TE OMBU'SMAN, NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AN' BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, Respondents. LE*4AR<*(
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS | SYLLABUS PART III 'ECISION 'EL CASTILLO, J.: nder te Gtreefold liability rule,G any act or omission of any public official or employee can result in criminal, ci!il, or administrati!e liability, eac of "ic is independent of te oter. 1 Tis Petition for Re!ie" on Certiorari& under Rule 23 of te Rules of Court assails te >5 and te Resolution2 dated 7une &:, &>>5 of te Court of Appeals CA- in CA( ?.R. SP 4o. =1>&1. Factual Antecedents Petitioner Ernesto A. a%ardo "as employed by respondent ureau of Customs *C- as a Cler; I from ebruary &5, 1=:& to ebruary &=, 1=:: and as a Cler; II from )arc 1, 1=::. 3 o"e!er, due to te e/i#ency of te ser!ice, e "as desi#nated as a Special Collectin# *fficer at te 4inoy A9uino International Airport 4AIA- Customs ouse, Collection >&, 4ancy )arco )arco-, a Commission on Audit C*A- State Auditor detailed at te 4AIA Customs ouse,8 "as directed by er superior, Auditor )elinda 'e#a(ria, to conduct a post audit of te abstract of collection of all collectin# officers of te 4AIA Customs ouse.: In te course of er audit, State Auditor )arco noticed tat in petitioners daily abstract of collection dated Au#ust 15, &>>&, e recei!ed cec;s in te amounts of ₱ &=3,>>>.>>, ₱ &28,>>>.>>, ₱ 1&&,>>>.>>, ₱ 1>:,>>>.>> and ₱ 1>3,>>>.>>.= To !erify "eter it "as possible for im to recei!e suc amounts in one day, a daily analysis of te sales of accountable forms "it te correspondin# documentary stamps "as made.1> In te Audit *bser!ation )emorandum A*) 4o. &>>&(>>:- 11 dated 4o!ember &5, &>>&, State Auditor Prudencia S. autista autista- reported tat petitioner as an unremitted collection from sales of accountable forms "it money !alue and stamps in te amount of ₱ &>,11:,+33.>> for te period 7anuary &>>& to *ctober &>>&.1& pon furter in!esti#ation by State Auditor )arco, it "as disco!ered tat based on te analysis of te montly sales of accountable forms and stamps, petitioner failed to remit te total amount of ₱ 3+,&12,&3:.>>1+ from 7anuary &>>> to *ctober &>>&.12 *n 7anuary 5, &>>+, Customs Commissioner Antonio ). ernardo re9uested respondent 4ational ureau of In!esti#ation(4ational Capital Re#ion 4I(4CR- to conduct an in!esti#ation on te reported misappropriation of public funds committed by petitioner.13 *n 7anuary :, &>>+, te resident auditors of 4AIA Customs ouse, namely@ )arco, autista, and ilomena Tolorio, e/ecuted separate GSinumpaan# SalaysayG15 at te 4I. Tey stated under oat tat based on te Analysis of te )ontly Sales of Accountable orms and Stamps for te years &>>>18 and &>>1,1: and te period 7anuary 1, &>>& to *ctober +1, &>>&, 1= and te Summary of Analysis of Sale of Stamps and Accountable orms for te period 7anuary &>>> to *ctober &>>&, &> petitioner failed to remit te total amount of ₱ 3+,&12,&3:.>>.&1 Tereafter, on 7anuary 1>, &>>+, an Information for !iolation of Republic Act RA- 4o. 8>:> Plunder"as filed a#ainst petitioner.&& Te case "as raffled to ranc 11= of te Re#ional Trial Court RTC- of Pasay City and doc;eted as Crim inal Case 4o. >+(>>2+.&+ *n ebruary :, &>>+, Customs >+, directed petitioner to file is counter(affida!it. *n )ay 1=, &>>+, petitioner filed is Counter(Affida!it &5 cate#orically denyin# te accusation urled a#ainst im. e claimed tat tere "as no under remittance on is part because te sale of *C forms does not automatically result in te sale of documentary stamps from te >&(>>: on te #round tat it "as not referred to te C*A Le#al and Ad%udication *ffice as mandated by Section 1, subsection & of te ?eneral ?uidelines of C*A )emorandum 4o. &>>&(>3+ dated Au#ust &5, &>>+. &:

Pa#e &> of 25

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS | SYLLABUS PART III Ruling of the Ombudsman *n )ay +, &>>3, te *mbudsman rendered a Pertinent portions of te >> and &>>1 and from 7anuary >1 to *ctober +1, &>>& in te total sum of ITM TREE )ILLI*4 SIX 4>- despite demand on ebruary :, &>>+ by te Customs >& to *ctober +>, &>>& amountin# to ₱ &>,11:,+33.>> "ic "as initially communicated to >&(>>: dated 4o!ember &5, &>>&. Tis leads to a furter in!esti#ation resultin# to te analysis of )ontly Sales of Accountable orms and Stamps prepared by te C*A State Auditors co!erin# te period 7anuary 1, &>>> to *ctober +>, &>>&, "ic so"ed tat te total amount of unremitted collections for te sale of accountable forms "it money !alue and customs documentary and IR stamps amounted to ₱ 3+,53:,+81.>>. Te follo"in# table so"s a comparison of collections and remittances per report of )r. Ernesto a%ardo and per audit by te team for te period 7anuary &>>> to *ctober +>, &>>&. As per audit report, te total amount of collections is ₱ 22>,5&+,111.>>, "ereas respondents report disclosed total collections in te amount of ₱ +:8,=1+,+:1.>>. / / / / Te abo!e(cited comparison focused on te e/amination and !erification of documents co!erin# collections and remittances of a%ardo. Te documents composed of li9uidated and unli9uidated entries comin# from te follo"in# offices@ 1- Li.%i(ation an( Biing /i$ision 0 which has th# f%nction of $#rif'ing) r#$i#wing an( ch#cing co!p%tation of for!a #ntri#s2 3- Cashi#rs 0 who s%&!it to COA a infor!a #ntri#s aft#r th#' ha$# co#ct#( c%sto!s (%ti#s) ta4#s an( oth#r charg#s for th# i!port#( goo(2 an( aso th# Bon(s /i$ision an( Offic# of th# /#p%t' Co#ctor for Op#rations which aso ha$# c%sto(' of $ario%s for!s witho%t !on#' $a%# s%ch as &on(s) c#aranc#s) #tc") wh#r# C%sto!s /oc%!#ntar' Sta!ps ,C/S- ar# r#.%ir#( &' r#g%ations to &# affi4#(" Th# a%(it i#wis# conc#ntrat#( on Confir!ation with fro! Bro#rs r#gar(ing th# sa# of C/S" In fact, confirmation letters "ere sent to &1& bro;ers "o purcased *C Accountable orms from 4AIA for te period 7anuary &>>> to *ctober &>>&. Selection "as based on te !olume of purcases made by te bro;ers. Te selected bro;ers ad te i#est number of purcases of *C Accountable orms "it money !alue re9uirin# payment of C
Pa#e &1 of 25

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS | SYLLABUS PART III tat tere are tree +- oter personnel under a%ardos super!ision suc as te C orms Cler;, C>& to *ctober +1, &>>&, said respondent "as able to sell accountable forms "it money !alue and stamps in te sum of ₱ 138,51&,3:3.>> but remitted only ₱ 1+8,2=2,&+>.>> to te Landan;, 4AIA Customs. *n 7anuary &>>1 D >1, respondent sold forms and stamps in te sum of ₱ &+8,=>3,:+2.>> but remitted only ₱ 1&+,83+,>53.>>. or te year &>>> said respondent sold te same forms and stamps in te sum of ₱ 123,+&>,>>>.>> but remitted only ₱ 1&5,555,1:5.>>. rom er summary, te total forms and stamps "ic respondent sold for said period "as in te total sum of ₱ 221,1&8,8+=.>>. o"e!er, respondent remitted only te sum of ₱ +:=,=1+,2:1.>>. Terefore, te total sum "ic respondent failed to remit amounted to ₱ 3+,&12,&3:.>>.>>, "ic "as later on corrected in te C*A final audit report to ₱ 3+,53:,+81.>> or an increase of ₱ 222,11+.>>. A re!ie" of te abo!e analysis initiated by C*A State Auditors ilomena ascon Tolorio and Prudencia S. autista, confirmed te fore#oin# findin#s. Te in!esti#atin# panel is, terefore, of te !ie" tat respondent ER4EST* A. A7AR<*, bein# a special collectin# officer of te 4AIA Customs ouse, is duty bound to remit collections of payments from te s ale of ureau of Customs *C- accountable forms "it money !alue as "ell as Customs
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS | SYLLABUS PART III / / / / FOREGOING CONSIDERED pursuant to Section 3& A(1- and A(+-, Rule I' of te niform Rules on Administrati!e Cases CSC Resolution 4o. ==1=+5-, dated Au#ust +1, 1===, respondent ER4EST* A. A7AR<* is ereby found #uilty of >3, te dispositi!e portion of "ic reads@

PREMISES CONSI'ERE', te instant motion for reconsideration is ereby 'ENIE' and te 'ECISION dated >+ )ay &>>3, is ereby AFFIRME' "it finality. Te onorable ALEXAN'ER M. AREVALO, Commissioner, ureau of Customs, is ereby directed to implement te + )ay &>>3, "it te re9uest to promptly submit to tis *ffice, tru te Preliminary In!esti#ation and Administrati!e Ad%udication ureau D C, 2t loor, *mbudsman ld#., A#am Road, ?o!ernment Center, 4ort Trian#le, *mbudsman Act of 1=:=-. S* *R>5, te CA affirmed te dismissal of petitioner. Te CA found substantial e!idence to support te *mbudsmans findin# tat petitioner is #uilty of disonesty and #ra!e misconduct. +3 It brused aside petitioners alle#ation tat te report on te results of te audit "as not la"fully introduced into te records of te case since no e!idence "as presented to substantiate suc alle#ation.+5 It li;e"ise re%ected petitioners contention tat te *mbudsman only as recommendatory po"ers, and tus, affirmed te po"er of te *mbudsman to remo!e errin# public officials or employees.+8 Te fallo of te CA
UPON TE VIE? ?E TA but te same "as una!ailin#.21

I@" ence, tis petition raisin# te follo"in# issues@ A. 6eter / / / competent e!idence "as presented before te *ffice of te *mbudsman to establis disonesty and #ra!e misconduct on te part of petitioner. Pa#e &+ of 25

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS | SYLLABUS PART III . 6eter / / / te CA committed #ra!e abuse of discretion in failin# to consider and appreciate te follo"in# !ital e!idences Hsic@ 1. At te Collectin# >> to *ctober +>, &>>& "ere all remitted and accounted for by petitioner. 2. Te testimony of 4ancy )arco on te safe#uards used to protect te inte#rity or reliability of te metered macine. 3. 4ancy )arco is not an e/pert "en se testified. 5. Te repeated admissions of 4ancy )arco tat er GAuditG sales can not be possible for te load on te macine per mont "as less tan er montly GauditG sale. C. 6eter / / / te CA committed #ra!e abuse of discretion in failin# to consider and appreciate te findin#s of te trial court in te related criminal case tat te e!idence of #uilt a#ainst petitioner "as "antin# and tat tere "as no direct e!idence to pro!e tat petitioner mal!ersed andFor amassed #o!ernment funds. <. 6eter / / / te CA committed #ra!e abuse of discretion in relyin# on documents "ic "ere not introduced or offered in e!idence before te *ffice of te *mbudsman. E. 6eter / / / te *mbudsman can directly dismiss petitioner from #o!ernment ser!ice.2& #etitione!$s A!guments Insistin# on is innocence, petitioner claims tat no competent e!idence "as presented before te *mbudsman to so" tat e is #uilty of disonesty and #ra!e misconduct.2+ e asserts tat te audit report of State Auditor )arco as no e!identiary "ei#t as te fi#ures stated terein are mere speculations.22 e li;e"ise contends tat te CA and te *mbudsman erred in relyin# on te report on te results of te audit, "ic "as ne!er formally submitted as e!idence durin# te proceedin#s before te *mbudsman.23 Instead, tey sould a!e considered te findin# of te RTC in te related criminal case tat te e!idence of #uilt a#ainst petitioner is "antin#.25 e points out tat "en State Auditor )arco "as cross(e/amined durin# te bail earin# in te criminal case filed a#ainst im, se alle#edly admitted tat it "as not possible for im to a!e sold more tan te amount loaded in te macine since tere is only one metered macine at te Collectin#
Pa#e &2 of 25

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS | SYLLABUS PART III recommend te remo!al of a public official.2: Res"ondents$ A!guments Te Solicitor ?eneral, as counsel for respondents, maintains tat te CA and te *mbudsman correctly found petitioner #uilty of disonesty and #ra!e misconduct as tere is substantial e!idence to support suc findin#.2= )oreo!er, contrary to te !ie" of petitioner, te *mbudsman as te po"er to remo!e an errin# public official or employee.3>

O@% R@/* Te petition lac;s merit. At te outset, it must be empasi0ed tat 9uestions of fact may not be te sub%ect of an appeal by c#rtiorari under Rule 23 of te 1==8 Rules of Court as te Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. 31 As a rule, findin#s of fact of te *mbudsman, "en affirmed by te CA, are conclusi!e and bindin# upon tis Court, unless tere is #ra!e abuse of discretion on te part of te *mbudsman.3& In tis case, tere is none. Pr#s%!ption of r#g%arit' was not o$#rt%rn#(" Petitioner imputes irre#ularities in te proceedin#s before te *mbudsman. e claims tat te CA and te *mbudsman sould not a!e relied on te report on te results of te audit because it "as not la"fully introduced or offered in e!idence before te *ffice of te *mbudsman. 3+ Suc alle#ation deser!es scant consideration. 4o e!idence "as presented by petitioner to pro!e suc alle#ation. As "e a!e often said, in te absence of clear and con!incin# proof to te contrary, public officers or employees are presumed to a!e performed teir official duties re#ularly, properly and la"fully. 32 esides, te report on te results of te audit "as not te sole basis for is dismissal from public ser!ice. Affida!its and testimonies of "itnesses ta;en durin# te bail earin# in te criminal case "ere also submitted as e!idence in te administrati!e case to pro!e te car#es a#ainst im. 33 In fact, te final report merely confirmed te contents of te audit report of State Auditor )arco as pointed out by Assistant *mbudsman Pela#io S. Apostol in is mar#inal note in te *rder dated 7uly &&, &>>3, "ic reads@ Te findin#s of discrepancies as contained in te audit obser!ation memorandum prepared by State Auditor 4ancy )arco "as already !erified and !alidated per C*A final audit report "ic "as indubitably considered in te draftin# of te 9uestioned >.38 Said fi#ure "as arri!ed at by deductin# te total amount remitted by petitioner from te total Gaudit salesG of all te accountable forms. Te Gaudit salesG of eac accountable form "as computed by di!idin# te total sale of eac form by te price of te form multiplied by te correspondin# amount of te documentary stamps.3: Te computations "ere made in accordance "it Customs )emorandum *rder C)*- 4o. 1=(883= dated April 12, 1=88 "ic pro!ides tat@ In order to simplify te processin# of entry papers and oter customs documents, it is directed tat metered customs documentary stamps be impressed beforeand and te amount tereof added to te cost of te documents "en sold. / / / Empasis supplied. Tus, contrary to te !ie" of petitioner, te Gaudit salesG are not based on mere speculations but are based on C)* 4o. 1=(88. In fact, durin# te initial audit, petitioner and is staff confirmed tat Gaccountable forms, namely@ C &+5, C 188, C 1==, C 2+ and C &2& are al"ays sold "it documentary stamps.G5> To dispro!e te correctness of te Gaudit sales,G petitioner arps on te fact tat te amount loaded

Pa#e &3 of 25

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS | SYLLABUS PART III on te macine per mont "as less tan te montly Gaudit salesG of State Auditor )arco. e insists tat tis pro!es tat tere "as no under remittance on is part. 6e do not a#ree. Te mere fact tat te load in te macine is less tan te Gaudit saleG does not pro!e is innocence. Rater, it only means tat eiter petitioner sold te accountable forms "itout te correspondin# documentary stamp, "ic is a clear !iolation of C)* 4o. 1=(88, or tat e used anoter macine, not autori0ed by is office, as teori0ed by State Auditor )arco. 51 To us, te discrepancy bet"een te Gaudit salesG and te actual amount remitted by petitioner is sufficient e!idence of disonesty and #ra!e misconduct "arrantin# is dismissal from public ser!ice. 6e need not belabor te point tat unli;e in a criminal case "ere proof beyond reasonable doubt is re9uired, administrati!e proceedin#s only re9uire substantial e!idence or Gsuc rele!ant e!idence as a reasonable mind may accept as ade9uate to support a conclusion.G 5& 4eiter do "e find any #ra!e abuse of discretion on te part of te CA in not considerin# te findin# of te RTC Gtat te e!idence of #uilt of petitioner is not stron#.G 5+ To be#in "it, te *rder52 dated 7anuary 5, &>>2, #rantin# petitioners application for bail, "as not attaced to te Petitio n 53 e filed "it te CA, nor "as it submitted as e!idence before te *mbudsman. 55 It is li;e"ise si#nificant to mention tat te said *rder merely resol!ed petitioners entitlement to bail. )ore important, te *mbudsman and te CA are not bound by te RTCs findin# because as a rule, administrati!e cases are independent from criminal proceedin#s.58 In fact, te dismissal of one case does not necessarily merit te dismissal of te oter.5: All told, "e find tat tere is substantial e!idence to so" tat petitioner failed to remit te amount of ₱ 3+,53:,+81.>> from te sale of accountable forms "it money !alue and documentary stamps for te period 7anuary &>>> up to *ctober &>>&. Th# O!&%(s!an has th# pow#r to (is!iss #rring p%&ic officias or #!po'##s" As a last ditc effort to sa!e imself, petitioner no" puts in issue te po"er of te *mbudsman to order is dismissal from ser!ice. Petitioner contends tat te *mbudsman in dismissin# im from ser!ice disre#arded Section 1+, subpara#rap +, Article XI of te Constitution as "ell as Section 13+of RA 4o. 588>.5= "ic only !ests in te *mbudsman te po"er to recommend te remo!al of a public official or employee. Petitioners contention as no le# to stand on. It is already "ell(settled tat Gte po"er of te *mbudsman to determine and impose administrati!e liability is not merely recommendatory but actually mandatory.G8> As "e a!e e/plained in Atty. Ledesma !. Court of Appeals,81 te fact Gtat te refusal, "itout %ust cause, of any officer to comply "it te order of te *mbudsman to penali0e an errin# officer or employee is a #round for disciplinary action under Section 13+- of RA 4o. 588>$ is a stron# indication tat te *mbudsmans recommendation is not merely ad!isory in nature but is actually mandatory "itin te bounds of la".G8&

?EREFORE, te petition is ereby 'ENIE'. te >5 and te Resolution dated 7une &:, &>>5 of te Court of Appeals in CA(?.R. SP 4o. =1>&1 are ereby AFFIRME'. S* *R

SUPREME COURT )anila TIR<
G.R. No. 114

*@%3 6, 1999

MILAGROS L. 'IA, petitioner, !s. Pa#e &5 of 25

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS | SYLLABUS PART III SAN'IGANBAYAN, respondent. VITUG, J.: p )ila#ros L. - years and one 1day of r#c%sion t#!pora $ &. fine in te amount of P=,:1+.==, te amount e9ual to te amount mal!ersed$ and +. perpetual special dis9ualification for public office. Se is li;e"ise ordered to pay te ureau of Posts te amount of P5.8> only to complete te restitution made by te accused. S* *R+ )arc 1=:+, issued by Pro!incial Auditor 2 )arc 1=:+, ui%ada re9uired petitioner >,>>>.>>, "as found to a!e made cas payments in te total amount of si/ tousand one undred se!enty(one pesos and t"enty(tree centa!os P5,181.&+-, ereunder itemi0ed@ 4ature of Claims Telepone Rental

Amount 4o!. 1=:>

P&3>.>>

)ar. 1=:1

38>

+:3.&

Spare parts, Pil. )ail

7un. 1=8=

3>.3

?asoline, Pil. )ail

Au#. 1=8=

1,>&>.&>

Spare parts, Pil. )ail

5:2.:

*ffice Rental, S. a#uisan TE', )ila#ros L.
Pa#e &8 of 25

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS | SYLLABUS PART III Spare parts, Pil. )ail

7an. 1=:>

+3+.33

Repair, Pil. )ail

*ct. 1=:>

52


25

Re#istration ee$ Pil. )ail

&3.3

*ffice Rental, S. a#uisan

Au#. 1=:1

52>

4o!. 1=:1

25:.3


7an. 1=:&

+&

)ail Carria#e, Postmaster

7an. 1=:&

5

Sept. 1=:&

&&:.22

)ail Carria#e, Postmaster

eb. 1=:&

1&.3


eb. 1=:&

&+:.=3

are, Pedro <. Sindo

*ct. 1=:&

3

TE', )ila#ros L.
4o!. 1=:&

&3>.3

TE', )ila#ros L.

Salary, Carlos ). Ace!edo

:+=.3= QQQQ T*TAL

P5,181.&+ &

 Te audit team also found petitioner to a!e sold posta#e stamps in te sum of P:,>&>.2> "ic se ad failed to record in er cas boo;, and since ui%ada neiter considered te cas items in te aforesaid amount of P5,181.&+ as a!in# been !alidly disbursed, e reported tat petitioner ad incurred a total Gcas sorta#eG of P12,1=1.5+. e ten referred te matter to te Re#ional 3 )arc 1=:5, an information for mal!ersation of public funds "as filed a#ainst petitioner "it te Sandi#anbayan$ it read@ Tat on )arc 2, 1=:+ or for sometime prior tereto, in te )unicipality of Tanda#, Pro!ince of Suri#ao del Sur, Pilippines, and "itin te %urisdiction of tis onorable Court, said accused )ila#ros L.
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS | SYLLABUS PART III accountable for te public funds entrusted to er by reason of er position, "it #ra!e abuse of confidence and ta;in# ad!anta#e of er public position as suc, did ten and tere "illfully, unla"fully and feloniously misappropriate, embe00le and ta;e from said public funds te amount of P12,1=1.5+, Pilippine Currency, "ic e  sic appropriated and con!erted to er o"n personal use, to te dama#e and pre%udice of te #o!ernment in te aforementioned amount. C*4TRARM T* LA6. + Petitioner "as arrested by !irtue of a "arrant of arrest issued by te Sandi#anbayan. *n &2 )arc 1=:5, se posted bail in te amount of P&>,>>>.>>$ se "as fort"it ordered released from custody by te Re#ional Trial Court of Tanda#, Suri#ao del Sur, ranc XX'II. Te arrai#nment of petitioner sceduled for 13 )ay 1=:5 "as reset to 15 7une 1=:5 due to petitioners illness and later to te follo"in# mont at er re9uest. )ean"ile, petitioner filed a motion for rein!esti#ation "it te Sandi#anbayan contendin# tat te Actin# Pro!incial iscal of Tanda#, Suri#ao del Sur, "o ad conducted te preliminary in!esti#ation ultimately recommended te dismissal of te complaint on te #round tat petitioner "as able to fully account for te alle#ed sorta#e of P12,1=1.5+. Te motion "as #ranted. Te Tanodbayan rein!esti#ated te case. *n &2 April 1=:8, )ariflor Pun0alan(Castillo, te in!esti#atin# prosecutor, issued an order dismissin# te complaint on te basis of er findin# tat tere "as Gno so"in# of bad fait on te part of te accused "en se defrayed te e/penses sub%ect of te audit,G 2 tat te sorta#e "as incurred to defray operational e/penses for te Tanda# post office and tat te sorta#e in cas sould instead be blamed on te failure, or delay, of te Re#ional *ffice of te ureau of Posts in replenisin# te amount spent for office operation. Te in!esti#atin# prosecutor said@ *nly te amount of P1,8:5.:= as so far been replenised by te Re#ional *ffice. Te accountant of te Re#ional *ffice, ureau of Posts, 8.&= "as paid by te accused also pendin# replenisment from te Re#ional *ffice. Lastly, te ne" Postmaster of Tanda#, Suri#ao del Sur issued a certification tat )rs. )ila#ros 1 + +.+1.

Pa#e &= of 25

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS | SYLLABUS PART III Tis certification is issued upon re9uest and representation by said )ila#ros : ebruary 1=::, Special Prosecutor idel <. ?alinde0 informed te Sandi#anbayan of te ad!ice e ad recei!ed from te ureau of Posts tat te 9uestioned items "ere Gappropriate e/penses by te ureau.G = *n && )arc 1=::, te prosecutor manifested tat "it te afore9uoted certification of te Cief of te inance Section of Re#ion XI of te ureau of Posts, oldin# to be le#itimate e/penses te amount co!ered by te supposed sorta#e incurred by petitioner, tere "as no pri!a faci# case of mal!ersation. Te motion dre" obser!ation from C*A, trou# Assistant +.+1 "as inaccurate. *n 18 7une 1=::, te Sandi#anbayan a#ain denied te motion to "itdra" te information and ruled tat te "itdra"al of te information "as not %ustified because petitioner ad already been arrai#ned and tat te resolution of te conflict on te propriety of te disbursements made by petitioner "as a matter of e!idence tat sould instead be tresed out durin# trial. Trial ensued "it te prosecution and te defense presentin# teir respecti!e !ersions of te case. *n 13 )arc. 1==5, follo"in# te submission of e!idence, te Sandi#anbayan promul#ated its decision con!ictin# petitioner of te crime of mal!ersation. Toucin# base on te e!idence of petitioner tat te e/penses se ad incurred "ere Goffice related,G te Sandi#anbayan said tat te rulin# in 5iacorta $s" P#op#) 1> "ere suc e/penses "ere eld to be Gpayments made in #ood fait, tus destroyin# in tese instances te presumption of peculation in Art. &18 of te Re!ised Penal Code,G "ould only #i!e Gte accused te benefit of te doubtG by allo"in# er to so" tat te e/penses "ere Gindeed office related e/penses, and tus !alid cas itemsG re9uirin# tereby Gfor presentation at audit of te re9uired receipts accompanied by te duly accomplised and appro!ed !oucers, as "ell as a demonstration tat tese claims ad not been reimbursed and "ere still outstandin#G at te time of audit. Concedin# tat te amounts of P1,>:1.>> and P+,&=5.52, or a total of P2,+88.52, "ere allo"able, te Sandi#anbayan said tat petitioner "as Gstill sort of funds by P=,:1+.==G "ic petitioner "ould be Gpresumed to a!e mal!ersed . . . tere bein# no satisfactory proof presented to substantiate te le#itimate disbursement tereof. In tac;lin# te claim of petitioner tat se ad li9uidated rater tan restituted te cas items, te Sandi#anbayan e/plained@ Te distinction bet"een li9uidation and restitution, of course, is important. A i.%i(ation of a cas item means te !alidation of te transaction, "ile r#stit%tion means tat te accountable officer ad to di# from is or er pri!ate resources to co!er te amount in!ol!ed. Te amount paid by te accused as e!idenced by te official receipts se presented in court represented amounts "ic se ad already recei!ed but "ic se ne!er turned o!er until lon# after te audit. Tis only meant tat se as paid tese amounts to co!er er cas sorta#e. Tus tese items do not represent li9uidation but restitution. 11 It li;e"ise noted tat restitution is merely Greco#ni0ed in %urisprudence to be- a miti#atin# circumstance in mal!ersation cases.G / Pa#e +> of 25

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS | SYLLABUS PART III In er petition for re!ie" before tis Court, petitioner insists tat se did not appropriate or con!ert to er personal use te final sum of P=,:1+.== eld by te Sandi#anbayan to a!e been mal!ersed by er$ tat te amount as been used to defray te e/penses for office rentals, telepone rentals, spare parts, #asoline and re#istration fees, and tat se did a!e te correspondin# autority to pay tose items of e/penses. Te crime of mal!ersation for "ic petitioner as been indicted is defined and penali0ed under Article &18 of te Re!ised Penal Code$ its pertinent pro!isions read@ Art. &18. )al!ersation of public funds or property Q Presumption of mal!ersation. Q Any public officer "o, by reason of te duties of is office, is accountable for public funds or property, sall appropriate te same, or sall ta;e or misappropriate or sall consent, or trou# abandonment or ne#li#ence, sall permit any oter person to ta;e suc public funds or property, "olly or partially, or sall oter"ise be #uilty of te misappropriation of mal!ersation of suc funds or property, sall suffer@ / / /

///

///

2. Te penalty of r#c%sion t#!pora in its medium and ma/imum periods, if te amount in!ol!ed is more tan t"el!e tousand pesos but is less tan t"enty(t"o tousand pesos. If te amount e/ceeds te latter, te penalty sall be r#c%sion t#!pora in its ma/imum period to r#c%sion p#rp#t%a . In all cases, persons #uilty of mal!ersation sall also suffer te penalty of perpetual special dis9ualification and a fine e9ual to te amount of te funds mal!ersed or e9ual to te total !alue of te property embe00led. Te failure of a public officer to a!e duly fortcomin# any public funds or property "it "ic e is car#eable, upon demand by any duly autori0ed officer, sall be pri!a faci# e!idence tat e as put suc missin# funds or property to personal uses. Te felony in!ol!es breac of public trust, and "eter it is committed trou# (oo or c%pa te la" ma;es it punisable and prescribes a uniform penalty terefor. E!en "en te information car#es "illful mal!ersation, con!iction for mal!ersation trou# ne#li#ence may still be ad%ud#ed if te e!idence ultimately pro!es tat mode of commission of te offense. 1+ Te elements of mal!ersation of public funds are tat a- te offender is a public officer, b- e as custody or control of te funds or property by reason of te duties of is office, c- te funds or property are public funds or property for "ic e is accountable, and, most importantly, d- e as appropriated, ta;en, misappropriated or consented, or, trou# abandonment or ne#li#ence, permitted anoter person to ta;e tem. 12 Concededly, te first tree elements are present in tis case. It is te last element, i.e., "eter or not petitioner really as misappropriated public funds, "ere te instant petition focuses itself. In con!ictin# petitioner, te Sandi#anbayan cites te presumption in Article &18 of te Re!ised Penal Code tat te Gfailure of a public officer to a!e duly fortcomin# any public funds "it "ic e is car#eable, upon demand by any duly autori0ed officer, sall be pri!a faci# e!idence tat e as put suc missin# funds or property to personal uses.G Te presumption is, of course, rebuttable. Accordin#ly, if te accused is able to present ade9uate e!idence tat can nullify any li;eliood tat e ad put te funds or property to personal use, ten tat presumption "ould be at an end and te pri!a faci# case is effecti!ely ne#ated. Tis Court as repeatedly said tat "en te absence of funds is not due to te personal use tereof by te accused, te presumption is completely destroyed$ in fact, te presumption is deemed ne!er to a!e e/isted at all. 13 Te prosecution, upon "ose burden "as laden te tas; of establisin# by proof beyond reasonable doubt tat petitioner ad committed te offense car#ed, mainly relied on te statutory presumption aforesaid and failed to present any substantial piece of e!idence to indicate tat petitioner ad used te funds for personal #ain. Te e!idence submitted, %ust to te contrary, "ould point out tat not a centa!o of te so(called Gmissin# fundsG "as spent for personal use, a matter tat "as later ac;no"led#ed by te Special Prosecutor "o tereupon recommended te "itdra"al of te information earlier filed a#ainst petitioner. Te alle#ed sorta#es in te total amount of P12,1=1.5+ claimed by Auditor ui%ada ad been e/plained by petitioner. *n te day of te audit, se presented a list of cas items so"in# tat se ad spent te amount of P5,181.&+ for telepone and office

Pa#e +1 of 25

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS | SYLLABUS PART III rentals, spare parts of te !eicle bein# utili0ed for te deli!ery of mails, re#istration and repair of tat !eicle, #asoline, fare of an employee, te salary of anoter employee and petitioners tra!el e/pense !oucer. /6 Te auditor disallo"ed tese cas items only because at te time of audit, tese payments "ere not yet appro!ed by te Re#ional *ffice. 18 Te records, ne!erteless, "ould so" tat petitioners use of te cas in er possession for operational e/penses "as founded on !alid autority. C*A Circular 4o. 85(+8 allo"ed postmasters to ma;e payments for #asoline, spare parts and minor repairs of !eicles sub%ect to reimbursement by te Re#ional *ffice. Se ad!anced payments of salaries of employees on te basis of Circular 4o. :&(&1 issued by te Postmaster ?eneral. Te Re#ional *ffice, trou# te cief of te finance section, certified tat all te payments made by petitioner "ere le#itimate operational e/penses. E/ibit 8(a, attaced to te certificate of 1: 8 4o!ember 1=:& and &: ebruary 1=:+. It "ould appear tat someo" te Sandi#anbayan failed to consider te fact tat, on &> 4o!ember 1=:&, petitioner ad to !acate er post upon er promotion. 4otably, "ile te tirty(t"o cec;s "ere issued prior to te audit, tere "as notin# to su##est tat se already ad te cec;s in er possession at te time. Li9uidation of obli#ations incurred by accountable public officials in!ol!es a lon# process$ pertinent #o!ernment accountin# principles, re9uire te a- preparation of te disbursement !oucer, bprocessin# of te re9uest for allotment supported by suc documents as payrolls, disbursement !oucers, purcaseF%ob orders, re9uisitions for suppliesFmaterials, etc., and c- issuance of te correspondin# cec;. 1: Eac time, "en accomplised, te correspondin# amount is debited or deducted from te a!ailable funds of te a#ency "ic "ould ten consider te claim settled and paid altou# tere may a!e yet been no actual transfer of cas in!ol!ed from te #o!ernment to te payee of te cec;. Te term Gto li9uidateG means to settle, to ad%ust, to ascertain or to reduce to precision in amount. 1= GLi9uidationG does not necessarily si#nify payment, &> and Gto li9uidate an account,G can mean to ascertain te balance due, to "om it is due, and to "om it is payable, &1 ence, an account tat as been Gli9uidatedG can also mean tat te item as been made certain as to "at, and o" muc, is deemed to be o"in#. && It "ould indeed be folly and too restricti!e a usa#e to construe te "ord Gli9uidatedG as bein# solely te Greceipt of cec;s by petitioner or encasment of te cec; by petitioner,G and to tereby conclude tat se sould be eld to a!e mal!ersed te amount of P3,5>>.:2 merely for er GfailureG to transfer te sum eiter to er successor te day se "as promoted or to te auditor on te day te audit "as made. &+ Te defense e!idence, te autenticity and #enuineness of "ic "ere not contro!erted by te prosecution, "ould so" tat te Re#ional *ffice issued tirty cec;s bearin# dates bet"een >8 4o!ember 1=:& and &1 )arc 1=:2. Te cec;s "ere not issued fortri#tly. Te probability tat ineptitude on te part of te personnel ta;in# car#e of te issuance of te cec;s, not to mention te commonly(e/perienced lon# trail of red tape in #o!ernment transactions, ad en#endered delay in suc issuance sould not be discounted. Accordin# to petitioner, a#ain not contested by te prosecution, after substantiatin# er claim tat te Gsorta#eG represented le#itimate operational e/penses, se follo"ed up te appro!al of te cas items "it te Re#ional *ffice. pon finally recei!in# te tirty(tree cec;s, "it er as payee, se encased tem and immediately turned te cas o!er to te ureau of Posts of Tanda#. &2 ort"it, on >1 7uly 1=:+, petitioner paid te amount of P3,53&.13 to te ureau of Posts under *.R. 4o. 552355: &3 "ic amount, incidentally, is e!en sli#tly o!er te total amount of P3,5>>.:2 found by te Sandi#anbayan. Te payment by postal employees "o made G!alesG from petitioner "ere deposited by er to te account of te ureau of Posts of Tanda# under *.R. 4o. 552358>, dated >5 7uly 1=:+, in te amount of P2,133.12. Petitioner e/plained tat tis sum "as P&=2.5= less tan te total amount of te salaries due te employees because te employees did not al"ays ma;e G!alesG for te full amount of teir salaries. &5 6ile tis Court "ould consider te practice of disbursin# public funds under te G!aleG system to be unmeritorious "ere te disbursin# officer ad not been autori0ed to #rant G!alesG or to ma;e ad!ances of salaries, &8 in tis case, o"e!er, te conditions appended to te autority #ranted by te Postmaster ?eneral to ad!ance salaries of employees under Circular 4o. :&(&1 sanctioned te practice. Te conclusion made by te Sandi#anbayan tat te amounts paid by petitioner to te ureau of Pa#e +& of 25

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS | SYLLABUS PART III Posts under *.R. 4o. 552355: and 4o. 552358> "ere GrestitutionsG "ould seem to be less tan accurate. Te amounts "ere GreplenismentsG &: comin# from te Re#ional *ffice in cec;s issued out in petitioners name "ic se paid, after encasment, to te ureau of Posts. Te sum of P=,:>8.&= tat "as replenised, "en added to te ten items certified to be accounts payable and to t"o items replenised by cec;s issued after >2 )arc 1=:+, appro!ed as operational e/penses in te amount of P2,+88.52, totalled P12,&:2.2+, or e!en P=&.:> more tan te supposed Gsorta#eG of P12,151.5+. 6ile it "as not made clear "ic of te office e/penses ad been ta;en from te proceeds of te posta#e stamp sales, te fact still remained, ne!erteless, tat te Re#ional *ffice cleared petitioner of suc accountabilities, indicatin# at te !ery least tat se did not spend te amount for personal use. Te Court ad eretofore reco#ni0ed situations tat could necessitate te use by accountable public officials of cas on and for pertinent e/penditures in te conduct of official business. In B%ga'ong $s" P#op# , &= te Court ac9uitted an accused #o!ernment pysician of mal!ersation for a sorta#e in cas account upon audit e/amination because te collections in te ospital "ere found to a!e been used as its re!ol!in# fund for suc official e/penditures. In Pa!a 9i $s" P#op# , +> "ere donated lo#s "ere disposed of to construct municipal pro%ects, te Court eld tat if funds or property entrusted to a public officer "ere !alidly used for public purposes e sould not be eld liable for mal!ersation. Te Sandi#anbayan noticeably depended on te recommendations of C*A in con!ictin# appellant. Te Court could not elp but obser!e tat upon bein# informed tat te ureau of Posts ad reimbursed te entire amount alle#ed to be er sorta#e, Auditor ui%ada opined tat is audit report ad to be altered to reflect tat fact. Auditor ui%adas ac9uiescence to te alteration of is report to conform to te ad!ice "ould someo" manifest tat te audit "as not conducted "it sufficient torou#ness. In Tinga $s" P#op# , +1 te Court said@ At tis %uncture, it may not be amiss to state tat considerin# te #ra!ity of te offense of )al!ersation of Public unds, %ust as #o!ernment treasurers are eld to strict accountability as re#ards funds entrusted to tem in a fiduciary capacity, so also sould e/aminin# C*A auditors act "it #reater care and caution in te audit of te accounts of suc accountable officers to a!oid te perpetration of any in%ustice. Accounts sould be e/amined carefully and torou#ly to te last detail, "it absolute certainty in strict compliance "it te )anual of Instructions. Special note sould be ta;en of te fact tat disallo"ances for lac; of pre(audit are not necessarily tantamount to mal!ersation in la". Imperati!e it is li;e"ise tat sufficient time be #i!en e/amined officers to reconstruct teir accounts and refute te car#e tat tey ad put #o!ernment funds to teir personal uses. Access to records must be afforded tem "itin a reasonable time after audit "en disbursements are still fres in teir minds and not years after "en rele!ant official records may no lon#er be a!ailable and te passa#e of time as blurred uman memory.+& In
Pa#e ++ of 25

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS | SYLLABUS PART III dis9uisition, is one suc instance.1âwphi1"n:t 6ERE*RE, te decision of te Sandi#anbayan appealed from is SET ASI

SUPREME COURT IRST
G.R. No. 16169

@/3 9, &&

ATTY. RONAL'O P. LE'ESMA, Petitioners, !s.

ON. COURT OF APPEALS, ON. ANIANO A. 'ESIERTO, *  23  O#$@+#*, ON. ABELAR'O L. APORTA'ERA, *  23  A2*2 O#$@+#*, *+ O#$@+#* F2 F*+*- *+ I*2"//-"*" B@%"@, %"%""*2"+ $3 '%"2o% AGAPITO ROSALES, Res"ondents.
YNARESSANTIAGO, J .D Tis petition for re!ie" on certiorari see;s to re!erse and set aside te decision1 dated Au#ust &:, &>>+ and te resolution& dated 7anuary 13, &>>2 of te Court of Appeals + in CA(?.R. SP 4o. 3:&52 "ic affirmed "it modification public respondents 1- 7oint Resolution dated 7anuary &&, 1===, "ic ordered, amon# oter tin#s, petitioners suspension for one 1- year for conduct pre%udicial to te ser!ice$ and &- *rder dated ebruary :, &>>>, as reiterated in a )emorandum dated )arc 18, &>>>, "ic denied petitioners motion for reconsideration but reduced is suspension to nine =monts "itout pay. Te Court of Appeals modified te abo!e issuances by furter reducin# petitioners suspension from nine =- monts to si/ 5- monts and one 1- day "itout pay. 2 Petitioner Atty. Ronaldo P. Ledesma is te Cairman of te irst (=:(>&12 criminal aspect-, for nine =- counts of !iolation of te Anti(?raft and Corrupt Practices Act and for falsification of public documents, and *)(A<)(>(=:(>>+: administrati!e aspect-, for nine =- counts of
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS | SYLLABUS PART III Conduct Pre%udicial to te Interest of te Ser!ice$ &. Te instant case a#ainst ATTM. ARTEL . CAR*4*4?A4 be in te administ!ati%e case alle#in# tat te *C "ic re!ie"s all applications for TR's e/tension, appro!ed te TR's in 9uestion, ence, petitioner ar#ued tat it effecti!ely declared te applications for e/tension re#ular and in order and "ai!ed any infirmity tereon. In an *rder11 dated ebruary :, &>>>, ?raft *fficer Reyes recommended te denial of te motion for reconsideration "ic "as appro!ed by respondent *mbudsman on )arc &2, &>>> but reduced te period of suspension from one 1- year to nine =- monts "itout pay. *n April 1+, &>>>, petitioner filed a petition for re!ie" "it te Court of Appeals, "ic included a prayer for te issuance of a "rit of preliminary proibitory mandatory in%unction andFor temporary restrainin# order to en%oin public respondents from implementin# te order of suspension. Te Court of Appeals issued te TR* on April 1=, &>>>. In its >+, te Court of Appeals affirmed petitioners suspension but reduced te period from nine =- monts to si/ 5- monts and one 1- day "itout pay. 1& 6it te denial of is motion for reconsideration, petitioner filed te instant petition for re!ie" on te follo"in# #rounds@ I. I4 PR*)L?ATI4? ITS ASSAILE<
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS | SYLLABUS PART III 6e are not persuaded. In is attempt to escape liability, petitioner undermines is position in te I< and is role in te processin# of te sub%ect applications. ut by is o"n admission, 12 it appears tat te SI not only transmits te applications for TR' e/tension and its supportin# documents, but more importantly, it inter!ie"s te applicants and e!aluates teir papers before ma;in# a recommendation to te *C. Te SI re!ie"s te applications and "en it finds tem in order, it e/ecutes a )emorandum of Transmittal to te *C certifyin# to te re#ularity and propriety of te applications. In Arias $" San(igan&a'an ,13 "e stated tat all eads of offices a!e to rely to a reasonable e/tent on teir subordinates. Practicality and efficiency in te conduct of #o!ernment business dictate tat te #ritty details be sifted and re!ie"ed by te time it reaces te final appro!in# autority. In te case at bar, it is not unreasonable for te *C to rely on te e!aluation and recommendation of te SI as it cannot be e/pected to re!ie" e!ery detail of eac application transmitted for its appro!al. Petitioner bein# te Cairman of te irst , oter"ise ;no"n as Te *mbudsman Act of 1=:=, "as passed into la" on 4o!ember 18, 1=:= and pro!ided for te structural and functional or#ani0ation of te *ffice of te *mbudsman. RA 588> mandated te *mbudsman and is deputies not only to act promptly on complaints but also to enforce te administrati!e, ci!il and criminal liability of #o!ernment officers and employees in e!ery case "ere te e!idence "arrants to promote efficient ser!ice by te ?o!ernment to te people.1=

Pa#e +5 of 25

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS | SYLLABUS PART III Te autority of te *mbudsman to conduct administrati!e in!esti#ations as in te present case is settled.&> Section 1= of RA 588> pro!ides@ SEC. 1=. A(!inistrati$# Co!paints . D Te *mbudsman sall act on all complaints relatin#, but not limited to acts or omissions "ic@ 1- Are contrary to la" or re#ulation$ &- Are unreasonable, unfair, oppressi!e or discriminatory$ +- Are inconsistent "it te #eneral course of an a#encys functions, tou# in accordance "it la"$ 2- Proceed from a mista;e of la" or an arbitrary ascertainment of facts$ 3- Are in te e/ercise of discretionary po"ers but for an improper purpose$ or 5- Are oter"ise irre#ular, immoral or de!oid of %ustification. Te point of contention is te bindin# po"er of any decision or or der tat emanates from te *ffice of te *mbudsman after it as conducted its in!esti#ation. nder Section 1++- of Article XI of te 1=:8 Constitution, it is pro!ided@ S#ction 16 . Te *ffice of te *mbudsman sall a!e te follo"in# po"ers, functions, and duties@ ... +- support public respondents teory. Section 13 is substantially te same as Section 1+, Article XI of te Constitution "ic pro!ides for te po"ers, functions and duties of te *mbudsman. 6e dra" attention to subpara#rap +, to "it@ SEC. 13. Pow#rs) F%nctions an( /%ti#s" D Te *ffice of te *mbudsman sall a!e te follo"in# po"ers, functions and duties@ ...

Pa#e +8 of 25

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS | SYLLABUS PART III +- intended tat te implementation of te order be coursed trou# te proper officer, "ic in tis case "ould be te ead of te I<. It is li;e"ise apparent tat under RA 588>, te la"ma;ers intended to pro!ide te *ffice of te *mbudsman "it sufficient muscle to ensure tat it can effecti!ely carry out its mandate as protector of te people a#ainst inept and corrupt #o!ernment officers and employees. Te *ffice "as #ranted te po"er to punis for contempt in accordance "it te Rules of Court.&2 It "as #i!en disciplinary autority o!er a electi!e and appointi!e officials of te #o!ernment and its subdi!isions, instrumentalities and a#encies "it te e/ception only of impeacable officers, members of Con#ress and te 7udiciary-.&3 Also, it can pre!enti!ely suspend any officer under its autority pendin# an in!esti#ation "en te case so "arrants.&5 Te fore#oin# interpretation is consistent "it te "isdom and spirit beind te creation of te *ffice of te *mbudsman. Te records of te deliberations of te Constitutional Commission &8 re!eal te follo"in#@ )R. )*4S*<@ )adam President, p#rhaps it !ight &# h#pf% if w# gi$# th# spirit an( int#n(!#nt of th# Co!!itt##" ;hat w# want#( to a$oi( is th# sit%ation wh#r# it (#t#riorat#s into a pros#c%tion ar!" 6e "anted to #i!e te idea of te *mbudsman a cance, "it presti#e and persuasi!e po"ers, and also a cance to really function as a campion of te citi0en. o"e!er, "e do not "ant to foreclose te possibility tat in te future, Te Assembly, as it may see fit, may a!e to #i!e additional po"ers to te *mbudsman$ "e "ant to #i!e te concept of a pure *mbudsman a cance under te Constitution. )R. R*
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS | SYLLABUS PART III recommended te appro!al of te &8 resolutions for te creation of te office of te *mbudsman, but not"itstandin# te e/plicit purpose enunciated in tat report, te implementin# la" D te last one, P.<. 4o. 15+>Qdid not follo" te main trus t$ instead it created te Tanodbayan, ... ... )R. )*4S*<@ reactin# to statements of Commissioner las *ple-@ )ay "e %ust state tat peraps te onorable Commissioner as loo;ed at it in too muc of an absolutist position, Te *mbudsman is seen as a ci!il ad!ocate or a campion of te citi0ens a#ainst te bureaucracy, not a#ainst te President. *n one and, "e are told e as no teet and e lac;s oter tin#s. *n te oter and, tere is te interpretation tat e is a competitor to te President, as if e is bein# brou#t up to te same le!el as te President. 6it respect to te ar#ument tat e is a tootless animal, "e "ould li;e to say tat "e are promotin# te concept in its form at te present, &%t w# ar# aso sa'ing that h# can #4#rcis# s%ch pow#rs an( f%nctions as !a' &# pro$i(#( &' aw in accor(anc# with th# (ir#ction of th# thining of Co!!ission#r Ro(rigo" ;# (i( not thin that at this ti!# w# sho%( pr#scri&# this) &%t w# #a$# it %p to Congr#ss at so!# f%t%r# ti!# if it f##s that it !a' n##( to (#signat# what pow#rs th# O!&%(s!an n##( in or(#r that h# &# !or# #ff#cti$#" This is not for#cos#(" So, is is a re!ersible disability, unli;e tat of a eunuc$ it is not an irre!ersible disability. Empasis supplied-&= It is tus clear tat te framers of our Constitution intended to create a stron#er and more effecti!e *mbudsman, independent and beyond te reac of political influences and !ested "it po"ers tat are not merely persuasi!e in caracter. Te Constitutional Commission left to Con#ress to empo"er te *mbudsman "it prosecutorial functions "ic it did "en RA 588> "as enacted. In te case of U' $" San(igan&a'an ,+> it "as eld@ Clearly, te Pilippine *mbudsman departs from te classical *mbudsman model "ose function is merely to recei!e and process te peoples complaints a#ainst corrupt and abusi!e #o!ernment personnel. Te Pilippine *mbudsman, as protector of te people, is armed "it te po"er to prosecute errin# public officers and employees, #i!in# im an acti!e role in te enforcement of la"s on anti(#raft and corrupt practices and suc oter offenses tat may be committed by suc officers and employees. Te le#islature as !ested im "it broad po"ers to enable im to implement is o"n actions. ...+1 In li#t of te fore#oin#, "e old tat te Court of Appeals did not commit any error in findin# te petitioner #uilty of conduct pre%udicial to te interest of te ser!ice and reducin# petitioners period of suspension to si/ 5- monts and one 1- day "itout pay, ta;in# into account te education and len#t of ser!ice of petitioner.

?EREFORE, te instant petition is 'ENIE'. Te >+ and te Resolution dated 7anuary 13, &>>2 of te Court of Appeals in CA(?.R. SP 4o. 3:&52 are AFFIRME'" SO OR'ERE'.


SUPREME COURT )anila 1&  R*)E* ). )*4TALLA4A !. *ICE * *)
PERALTA, .D Tis is a petition for re!ie" on c#rtiorari assailin# te >8 of te Court of Appeals in CA(?.R. SP 4o. =+:=: denyin# te petition filed by petitioner Romeo ). )ontallana and te ResolutionH& dated September 18, &>>8 denyin# petitioners motion for reconsideration. Pa#e += of 25

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS | SYLLABUS PART III Te

factual

and

procedural

antecedents

are

as

follo"s@

In te early ours of Au#ust 1:, &>>1, fire struc; and en#ulfed te )anor otel in Bamias Road, ue0on City, claimin# te li!es of se!enty(four people and seriously in%urin# se!eral oters. To determine te officials and persons responsible for tis tra#edy, an in!esti#ation "as conducted by te act(indin# U Intelli#ence ureau I- of te *ffice of te *mbudsman *)-. Te I found tat te fire tat consumed te )anor otel "as attributable to te otels faulty electrical "irin# systems. It concluded tat, ad it not been for te #ross ne#li#ence of te public officials of te local #o!ernment of ue0on City, "o "ere in car#e in te licensin# operations of te )anor otel, te incident "ould not a!e appened. Conse9uently, a formal complaint "as filed a#ainst petitioner, "it se!eral oter public officials, before te Administrati!e Ad%udication ureau of te *), for ?ra!e )isconduct, Conduct Pre%udicial to te est Interest of te Sendee and ?ross 4e#li#ence doc;eted as *)(A<)(>(>1(>+85 *)(>(>1(>53=- and for 'iolation of Section 2, Republic Act R.A.- 4o. 581+, doc;eted as *)( A<)(*(*i(>+=> *)(>(>1(>58=-. Te complaint alle#ed, amon# oter tin#s, tat@ 1. rom 1==3 up to &>>>, te Electrical (11:12 "ic "as made as an attacment to te application of )anor otel for businessFmayors permit for &>>1. 2. Te Annual 4otice of Electrical Inspection dated ebruary 13, &>>1 conducted by ?erardo R. 'illasenor, Electrical Inspector, concurred by En#r. Rodel A. )esa and petitioner, so"s tat )anor otel as only := air(conditionin# units at te time of inspection disclosin# a #reat disparity as to te true electrical load of te )anor otel at te time of te incident. 3. Te Electrical >>, four 2- electrical meters of te )anor otel "ere disconnected by )ERALC* due to %umper connections.H+

Pendin# in!esti#ation, petitioner and is co(respondents "ere pre!enti!ely suspended. *n September &2, &>>1, petitioner filed is Counter(Affida!it.H2 *n ebruary &>, &>>&, petitioner filed is Consolidated )emorandum.H3 or is part, petitioner raised te follo"in# defenses@ 1. H<urin# is incumbency as Cief of te Electrical >>, Electrical Inspector 'illasenor inspected te electrical systems of )anor otel and submitted to im te 4otice of Annual Inspection dated ebruary 13, &>>1 "it 4o. >1(>>:=5, "it a Certification by Ed#ardo ). Pa#e 2> of 25

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS | SYLLABUS PART III )erida, a licensed electrical contractor, to te effect tat te electrical installations and e9uipments at te otel "ere inspected and tested by te latter and found to be in safe condition. e )ontallana- si#ned and appro!ed te same based on te facts set fort terein, relyin# in #ood fait on te correctness of te entries made by is inspectors. +. Te re9uested official records "ic could pro!e tat mandatory annual electrical inspection "ere conducted at te )anor otel from 1==3 to &>>> cannot be produced as tese could a!e been lost due to fre9uent transfers of office and lac; of stora#e rooms or "ere amon# tose dama#ed by te fire tat ra0ed te ue0on City all main buildin# sometime in Au#ust 1==:. 2. Assumin# tere "as misrepresentation as to te true electrical status of te )anor otel on te latest inspection conducted si/ 5- monts prior to te sub%ect fire incident, as a superior officer, e cannot be eld liable for te acts of is subordinates as e only based is appro!al on teir reports.H5

*n 7une 18, &>>+, te In!esti#atin# Panel of te *) rendered a
?EREFORE,

premises

considered,

"e

rule

and

so

old

as

follo"s@

OMBA'M&&1&476D

1-. a-.

/

/

/

/

b-.

/

/

/

/

c-. Respondents / / / ROMEO M. MONTALLANA / / /, are ereby found GUILTY OF

CON'UCT PREU'ICIAL TO TE BEST INTEREST OF TE SERVICE AN' GROSS NEGLECT OF 'UTY , and for "ic tey are ereby meted te penalty of 'ISMISSAL FROM TE SERVICE ?IT ALL ITS ACCESSORY PENALTIES . / Te

/ onorable

)ayor

/ of

ue0on

City,

/ and

te

onorable

Secretary of te
SO OR'ERE'.H:

*n 7uly &5, &>>2, te *ffice of te Special Prosecutor of te *) issued a )emorandumH= "ic modified .te 7oint >2. A##rie!ed, petitioner filed a )otion for Reconsideration.H1> *n )arc &, &>>5, te *ffice of te Special Prosecutor issued a )emorandumH11 denyin# te motion. Te said )emorandum "as appro!ed by ten *mbudsman )a. )erceditas 4a!arro(?utierre0 on )arc 1+, &>>5,H1& te Pa#e 21 of 25

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS | SYLLABUS PART III dispositi!e portion of "ic reads@ 6ERE*RE, in !ie" of te fore#oin#, tere a!in# been no co#ent and con!incin# ar#uments and pieces of e!idence to set aside te assailed )emorandum, te undersi#ned prosecution officers respectfully recommend tat te motions for reconsideration filed by erein accused be >2 be AIR)E< in toto .H1+

4ot satisfied, petitioner sou#t recourse before te CA, doc;eted as CA(?.R. SP 4o. =+:=:. *n )ay &:, &>>8, te CA rendered a >+ and )emorandum dated 7uly &5, &>>2 of te *ffice of *mbudsman, in so far as erein petitioner is concerned, is AIR)E<. S* *R
In rulin# a#ainst petitioner, te CA ratiocinated tat bet"een petitioners unsubstantiated denials of te irre#ularities made in te electrical inspection of te )anor otel and te cate#orical findin#s of te in!esti#ators, tere is no room for a contrary conclusion tat petitioner is indeed administrati!ely liable for is ne#li#ence. Te CA eld tat petitioner cannot attribute te fault to is subordinates. As ead of office and te final appro!in# autority of te Electrical >8. ence, te petition assi#nin# te follo"in# errors@ TE C*RT * APPEALS ?RA'ELM ERRE< I4
Petitioner maintains tat prior to te incident at te )anor otel, te Electrical >1 to te o"ner of )anor otel. Te notice bore te si#nature of te t"o inspectors, "o bot certified tat te electrical installations and e9uipment at te )anor otel "ere inspected and tested by tem and found to be in safe condition. Petitioner ten affi/ed is

Pa#e 2& of 25

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS | SYLLABUS PART III si#nature tereon si#nifyin# is appro!al of te reports made by is subordinates. Petitioner insists tat e si#ned te 4otice of Annual Inspection in #ood fait. is act of si#nin# te notice is incidental to is function as Actin# Cief of te Electrical >1. Petitioner submits tat is failure to present copies of prior notice of inspection reports made on te )anor otel "as due to te fact tat te otel "as constructed and completed prior to te creation of te Electrical
petition

is

bereft

of

merit.

?ross ne#lect of duty or #ross ne#li#ence refers to ne#li#ence caracteri0ed by te "ant of e!en sli#t care, actin# or omittin# to act in a situation "ere tere is a duty to act, not inad!ertently but "illfully and intentionally, "it a conscious indifference to conse9uences, insofar as oter persons may be affected. It is(te omission of tat care "ic e!en inattenti!e and tou#tless men ne!er fail to #i!e to teir o"n property. In cases in!ol!in# public officials, tere is #ross ne#li#ence "en a breac of duty is fla#rant and palpable.H&> True, tis Court as eld in se!eral cases tat in te absence of substantial e!idence of #ross ne#li#ence of te petitioner, administrati!e liability could not be based on te principle of command responsibility.H&1 o"e!er, in te case at bar, te findin#s of te *ffice of te *mbudsman, as affirmed by te CA, clearly establis te ne#li#ence of petitioner in te performance of is duties as ead of te Electrical
Pa#e 2+ of 25

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS | SYLLABUS PART III A. ormulate, e!aluate and super!ise te electrical aspects of te construction pro%ects underta;en by te city$ . Inspect te electrical installations of te ne"ly constructed structures in te City and %n(#rta# ann%a insp#ctions of #4isting ##ctrica instaations $ C. E!aluate and process applications for "irin# permits and electrical certificates$ and <. Perform oter related functions as may be re9uired by te practice of Electrical En#ineerin# as per re9uirements of te Pilippine Electrical Code, te R.A. 1:2 and oter related la"s arid ordinances.H&+

Tus, it "as incumbent on petitioner as ead of te Electrical >> and &>>1, "itout te necessary re9uirements for obtainin# te same suc as a Certificate of Electrical Inspection. Tus, for tese years, tere "as no electrical inspection conducted. urter, te otel did not apply and secure a business permit for year 1==5, 1==8, 1==: and it as no business permit at te time of te incident. Since tere "as no application for a business permit, tere "as li;e"ise no referral for an electrical inspection to te Electrical >1 does not per se pro!e tat an inspection "as indeed conducted. If it "ere so, te e/cess on te electrical load and te %umper connections "ould a!e been disco!ered tat could a!e pre!ented te incident, te pro/imate cause of "ic "as te electrical o!erload. 3. Te Ans"er of )anuel S. aduria, Sr. ( ire )arsall I stated tat te fire "as caused by electrical i#nition and tat it "as not is duty to re#ulateFinspect te installation of electrical "irin#s in buildin#s and establisments as it is incumbent upon te Electrical
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS | SYLLABUS PART III responsibility to conduct te annual inspection of te electrical installations of all te business establisments "itin te city. 8. Te Ans"er of En#r. Rodel A. )esa, Inspector En#ineer II, Electrical >1 did not pass trou# te normal cannel and "as processed and issued "itout is ;no"led#e and recommendation. e stressed tat te payment of fees correspondin# to te electrical loads and te issuance of te Certificate "ere all done in te same day, April 15, &>>1 and "as presented to im for is initial only on April 18, &>>1, after it "as already issued. Suc incident is not an isolated case as tere "ere oter instances tat te annual notice did not pass trou# im for reasons ;no"n only to is collea#ues. e tried to con!ey suc practice to is superior referrin# to petitioner- but no positi!e action "as ta;en tereon. :. Te Electrical Report 4o. >:(&=(>1 of En#r. >1 does not cate#orically pro!e tat te inspection "as conducted considerin# tat it contains misrepresentations as to te true electrical status of )anor otel. 1>. Petitioner made conflictin# statements about is and in te appro!al and si#nin# of suc 4otice. In tis petition and in te Consolidated )emorandum e stated tat e si#ned and appro!ed te 4otice of Annual Inspection "ile in is )otion for Reconsideration e stated tat e did not si#n nor initial said 4otice, but it "as En#r. Rodel A. )esa "o did so. Tis only so"s tat petitioner "as not sure as to is stand as to "eter an inspection "as conducted. 11. 6ile denyin# is participation in te 4otice of Annual Inspection dated ebruary 13, &>>1, petitioner ne!erteless used tis 4otice as is only proof tat inspection "ere re#ularly conducted.H&2

Te purpose of administrati!e proceedin#s is mainly to protect te public ser!ice, based on te time( onored principle tat a public office is a public trust.H&3 rom te fore#oin#, petitioners ne#li#ence in te performance of is duties as a public ser!ant "as "ell establised. In administrati!e proceedin#s, te 9uantum of proof necessary for a findin# of #uilt is substantial e!idence, i"#", tat amount of rele!ant e!idence tat a reasonable mind mi#t accept as ade9uate to support a conclusion.H&5 Suffice it to state tat in tis %urisdiction te "ell(settled rule is tat te findin#s of fact of administrati!e bodies, if based on substantial e!idence, are controllin# on te re!ie"in# autority. It is settled tat it is not for te appellate court to substitute its o"n %ud#ment for tat of te administrati!e a#ency on te sufficiency of te e!idence and te credibility of te "itnesses. Administrati!e decisions on matters "itin teir %urisdiction are entitled to respect and can only be set aside on proof of #ra!e abuse of discretion, fraud or error of la".H&8 Conse9uently, te CA correctly affirmed te conclusion of te *ffice of te *mbudsman. )oreo!er, te issue of "eter petitioners #uilt on te administrati!e car#es a#ainst im is supported by substantial e!idence is factual in nature, te determination of "ic is beyond te ambit of tis Court. Te tas; of tis Court in an appeal by petition for re!ie" on certiorari as a %urisdictional matter is limited to re!ie"in# errors of la" tat mi#t a!e been committed by te CA. H&: Te Supreme Court cannot be tas;ed to #o o!er te proofs presented by te petitioner in te proceedin#s belo" and analy0e, assess and "ei# tem to ascertain if te court a .%o and te appellate court "ere correct in teir appreciation of te e!idence.H&= Tis Court as time and a#ain Pa#e 23 of 25

GovCon Syllabus Part III

Recommend Documents