Rubio v. Ombudsman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Lung Center of the Philippines (Lung Center), through its Bids and Awards Committee (BAC), conducted an open bidding for security services. Merit Protection Investigation Agency (Merit) submitted the lowest bid at ₱12,000.00 per security guard. However, Starforce Security and Allied Services (Starforce), the incumbent agency, and other bidders pointed out that Merit's bid was below the standard contract rate set by the Philippine Association of Detective and Protective Agency Operators, Inc. (PADPAO) and the Department of Health (DOH) guidelines. The BAC initially recommended Merit, but petitioner Dr. Juanito Rubio, Assistant Secretary for Finance and Management of the Department of Health and Executive Director of the Lung Center, noted the violation of the PADPAO rate. The BAC then recommended Starforce, and the Notice of Award remained unsigned by petitioner. Procedural History: The Lung Center retained Starforce at its old rate. Starforce requested a retroactive adjustment of its contract rate from ₱11,530.00 to ₱14,000.00. The Lung Center's Management Committee granted the adjustment prospectively from January 2004 to July 2004. A security service contract at ₱14,000.00 was signed on January 23, 2004. Subsequently, Bayani Mira of Merit filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, alleging that petitioner caused undue injury to the government and conferred unwarranted benefits to Starforce through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. The Petition: The Office of the Ombudsman recommended the filing of an Information with the Sandiganbayan, which was subsequently filed. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with Special Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order, assailing the Ombudsman's Resolution and Order, contending that the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in filing an Information for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 against the petitioner. Whether the petitioner, in disregarding the results of the public bidding and entering into a contract with Starforce, caused undue injury to the government and conferred unwarranted benefit, advantage, or preference to a private party through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The assailed Resolution and Order of the Office of the Ombudsman dated August 1, 2005 and December 7, 2005, respectively, are SET ASIDE. The Sandiganbayan is ordered to forthwith DISMISS Criminal Case No. 28414, entitled People of the Philippines v. Dr. Juanito Rubio y Adiarte.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019: The Supreme Court held that the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion. To be liable under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, the prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is a public officer, committed the prohibited acts during the performance of official duties, caused undue injury to any party, and acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. In this case, Merit's bid was below the standard contract rate mandated by PADPAO's Memorandum Circular NR. 1, Series of 2001, and the DOH Guidelines on Public Bidding for Security Services explicitly state that non-conformity with the PADPAO rate is a ground for automatic disqualification. Therefore, petitioner was justified in not awarding the contract to Merit, despite its lowest bid, as it would have violated industry standards and potentially labor laws. The investigation report also indicated that the government did not suffer undue injury and, in fact, may have saved money by retaining Starforce, as the ₱14,000.00 rate was within the PADPAO ceiling and rectified previous non-compliance with labor laws. The Court found no indication that petitioner violated Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 to warrant criminal prosecution. On the issue of causing undue injury and conferring unwarranted benefit: The subsequent renewal of the contract with Starforce at the old rate and the later adjustment to the PADPAO rate were not unilateral decisions of the petitioner but were collegial decisions of the BAC and the Management Committee, respectively.
Main Doctrine
The Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion in filing an Information for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 against the petitioner, as the evidence showed that the petitioner was justified in not awarding the security contract to the lowest bidder whose bid violated the PADPAO rate and DOH guidelines, and the subsequent contract renewal and rate adjustment were collegial decisions made in compliance with labor laws and industry standards.