Fernandez v. Office of the Ombudsman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Province of Aklan entered into contracts with Jireh Construction for several infrastructure projects, including the Alibagon-Baybay Bridge (Phase II) and four other projects (Phase III of the same bridge, Buruanga Fishing Port, Irrigation Canal Access Road, and Navitas Barangay Health Center). Jireh Construction was awarded these contracts through public bidding. However, the projects, particularly the Alibagon-Baybay Bridge (Phase II), were significantly delayed and ultimately abandoned by the contractor, with substantial amounts of government funds already disbursed. An audit by the Commission on Audit (COA) revealed that Jireh Construction had not completed the projects as contracted and that the provincial government had failed to take appropriate action against the contractor, such as forfeiting performance bonds or terminating the contracts. Procedural History: Following the COA audit findings, the Governor of Aklan filed an administrative complaint for gross neglect of duty against several provincial officials, including petitioner Victory M. Fernandez, who was the Provincial Engineer. The Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas) found Fernandez and others guilty of gross neglect of duty and ordered their dismissal from service. Fernandez, along with others, filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. Subsequently, Fernandez filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the Ombudsman's decision. The CA later denied Fernandez's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner Victory M. Fernandez filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure with the Supreme Court. He assails the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Ombudsman's finding of gross neglect of duty. Fernandez argues that he cannot be faulted for stating that Jireh Construction had no abandoned project at the time of the bidding for the four projects, as the AB Bridge Project's extended completion date had not yet passed. He also contends that a subsequent memorandum suspending all infrastructure projects caused the non-completion. The petition seeks the reversal of the CA's decision and the lifting of the dismissal order.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in affirming the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in finding petitioner guilty of gross neglect of duty and dismissing him from service.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision dated 9 July 2010 and Resolution dated 30 September 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 112515 are affirmed. The temporary restraining order issued on 13 December 2010 is lifted.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the CA committed a reversible error in affirming the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in finding petitioner guilty of gross neglect of duty and dismissing him from service: The Court ruled that the petition lacks merit. Petitioner Fernandez argued that he could not be faulted for stating that Jireh Construction had no abandoned project at the time of the bidding for the Four Projects because the bidding occurred in February and March 1995, and the AB Bridge Project's extended completion date had not yet expired. He also contended that Governor Miraflores' memorandum suspending projects was the reason for non-completion. However, the Court found that the COA audit revealed that Jireh Construction had abandoned the AB Bridge Project as early as December 20, 1994, with only 22.89% completion, despite petitioner's certification of 48.57% completion. The extended completion date of March 27, 1995, did not negate the fact of abandonment prior to that date. As the provincial engineer, petitioner had direct knowledge of the project's status and was in a position to inform the PBAC of Jireh Construction's abandonment and poor performance. His failure to do so, particularly by submitting a false report to the PBAC, constituted gross negligence. The Court emphasized that gross negligence is characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act willfully and intentionally with conscious indifference to consequences. In this case, the breach of duty was flagrant and palpable. Furthermore, the Court noted that Memorandum No. 004 was issued on July 5, 1995, which was after the expected completion dates of all five projects, thus refuting petitioner's claim that the suspension order caused the non-completion. The Court concluded that the Ombudsman's decision, as affirmed by the CA, finding petitioner equally responsible with the PBAC members for gross neglect of duty, was correct, and the penalty of dismissal from service was warranted under the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987.
Main Doctrine
A public official, particularly a provincial engineer overseeing infrastructure projects, is grossly negligent when they fail to provide accurate and complete information to the Bids and Awards Committee regarding a contractor's performance and abandonment of a project, thereby causing undue injury to the government. This includes failing to monitor project slippages, report poor performance, and recommend necessary actions like contract termination.