Jomadiao v. Arboleda
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Bureau of Soils and Water Management (BSWM) allotted Nine Million Pesos (P9,000,000.00) for the rehabilitation of canals and dams in Looc, Romblon, under the Small Water Impounding Project (SWIP). The Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) of Looc, with petitioners Jessie L. Jomadiao and Wilma F. Pastor as members, and Mayor Juliet Ngo-Fiel as head of the procuring entity, convened to deliberate on the SWIP projects. The BAC decided to subdivide the P9,000,000.00 into seven projects, each costing less than P5,000,000.00, to justify publication in a local newspaper instead of a newspaper of national circulation. An Invitation to Apply for Eligibility and to Bid (IAEB) was published twice in the Romblon Sun, a local newspaper, and posted on the municipal bulletin board. R.G. Florentino Construction and Trading (R.G. Florentino) was the lone bidder with a bid of P8,999,500.00. The BAC accepted and recommended R.G. Florentino's bid. A Notice of Award was issued, followed by the SWIP contract and a Notice to Proceed. A Certificate of Acceptance and Turn Over was issued by the Municipality of Looc, indicating completion of the SWIP. Procedural History: The Commission on Audit (COA) forwarded an Annual Audit Report noting violations of Republic Act No. 9184 (RA 9184) and its Implementing Rules and Regulations – A (IRR-A) in the awarding of the SWIP to R.G. Florentino. Respondent Manuel Arboleda filed a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman against the BAC members and Mayor Fiel for various irregularities, including non-submission of a pre-procurement conference, improper publication of the IAEB, negligence or bias towards R.G. Florentino, conducting the bidding prior to receipt of funds, failure to rate the bid as 'failed' due to incomplete bid security, and excess advance payment. The Office of the Ombudsman found the BAC members and Mayor Fiel guilty of grave misconduct and imposed dismissal from service. Petitioners Jomadiao and Pastor filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing they lacked training and were unaware of certain procedures, but it was denied. They elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the Ombudsman's decision. Their motion for reconsideration was also denied by the CA. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court, raising issues on whether the CA erred in denying their petition, applying a previous ruling, and whether they willfully violated or disregarded procurement processes to give unwarranted advantage to R.G. Florentino.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the petition for review and sustaining the findings of the Office of the Ombudsman despite the fact that said findings are grounded on mere speculations, surmises and conjectures, contrary to the evidence on record. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in applying the ruling of the Supreme Court in Lagoc v. Malaga, et al. to the case at bar. Whether petitioners willfully violated or disregarded procurement processes and procedure in order to give unwarranted advantage and preference to R.G. Florentino Construction and Trading.
Ruling
The Supreme Court partly granted the petition. The Decision dated July 21, 2016, and the Resolution dated March 1, 2017, of the Court of Appeals were set aside. A new one was entered finding petitioners Jessie L. Jomadiao and Wilma F. Pastor guilty of simple neglect of duty, and imposing a penalty of six (6) months suspension.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the petition for review and sustaining the findings of the Office of the Ombudsman: The Court found that petitioners were not guilty of grave misconduct for conspiracy. However, it held that the BAC, including petitioners, fell short in the publication requirement when it failed to advertise the IAEB in a newspaper of general nationwide circulation. The BAC incorrectly interpreted the law by subdividing the project to justify publication in a local newspaper, when the total contract amount exceeded P5,000,000.00. The Court also clarified that while the duty of publication falls upon the BAC Secretariat, BAC members have the obligation to ensure proper conduct of public bidding. The Court noted that allowing a bidder to pay for publication, though against the bidder's interest, does not automatically grant leverage. Regarding the non-posting on PhilGeps, the respondent failed to prove that the municipality had the capability for such posting. The Court also found that the bid security submitted by R.G. Florentino was valid and met the requirements of RA 9184, contrary to the Ombudsman's finding. On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in applying the ruling of the Supreme Court in Lagoc v. Malaga, et al.: The Court did not explicitly discuss the application of Lagoc v. Malaga, et al. in its ratio decidendi, but the overall reasoning focused on the duties and liabilities of BAC members in procurement processes. The Court emphasized that the functions of BAC members are not merely ceremonial and they have an obligation to ensure the proper conduct of public bidding to eliminate favoritism and anomalous practices. On the issue of whether petitioners willfully violated or disregarded procurement processes and procedure in order to give unwarranted advantage and preference to R.G. Florentino Construction and Trading: The Court ruled in the negative regarding willful violation or conspiracy to give unwarranted advantage. However, it found that petitioners were wanting in the performance of their duties as BAC members. The Court reclassified the offense from grave misconduct to simple neglect of duty, which is the failure to give attention to a task or the disregard of a duty due to carelessness or indifference. This reclassification was based on the evidence presented and the specific roles and knowledge attributed to the petitioners as provisional BAC members.
Main Doctrine
While petitioners were found not guilty of grave misconduct for conspiracy in awarding the SWIP project, they were found guilty of simple neglect of duty for failing to ensure faithful compliance with the provisions of Republic Act No. 9184 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations during the bidding process, specifically regarding the publication of the Invitation to Apply for Eligibility and to Bid.