Constantino v. Desierto
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case concerns a dispute arising from the lease and subsequent purchase of heavy equipment by the Municipality of Malungon, Sarangani Province, under the leadership of Mayor Felipe K. Constantino. The Sangguniang Bayan initially authorized the Mayor to enter into a negotiated contract for the lease/purchase of seven units of heavy equipment. Subsequently, Mayor Constantino entered into a lease agreement with Norlovanian Corporation, which included an undertaking to transfer ownership at the end of the lease term. The equipment was delivered and accepted, and the Sangguniang Bayan even passed a resolution authorizing its operation. However, a later resolution by the Sangguniang Bayan halted payments, citing alleged irregularities in the acquisition process and the inoperability of the equipment, despite prior resolutions acknowledging the lease/purchase. Procedural History: Following the Sangguniang Bayan's resolution to stop payments, a complaint was filed with the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao, accusing Mayor Constantino of violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, grave misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the service, and gross neglect of duty. The Mayor was placed under preventive suspension, which was initially enjoined by a Regional Trial Court. Motions for inhibition of the Deputy Ombudsman and for resetting of hearings were filed by the Mayor and the lessor, but these were denied. An appeal regarding the denial of the inhibition motion was dismissed. Meanwhile, an information for violation of the Anti-Graft Act was filed before the Sandiganbayan. The Ombudsman issued a resolution finding Mayor Constantino guilty of grave misconduct, prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and gross neglect of duty, ordering his dismissal from the service. This dismissal order was to be enforced by the DILG Regional Director, but its implementation was halted upon the institution of the present action. The Petition: Mayor Felipe K. Constantino filed this special civil action for certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to invalidate the Resolution of the Ombudsman dated October 22, 1996, which found him guilty of grave misconduct, prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and gross neglect of duty, and ordered his dismissal. The petition argues that the Ombudsman erred in not reviewing his motions for inhibition and to reset hearings, and that the Sangguniang Bayan's resolutions and the lease/purchase agreement were misinterpreted. Specifically, the petitioner contends that Resolution No. 21 clearly authorized a negotiated lease/purchase without specific parameters, and that the subsequent agreement with Norlovanian Corporation, embodied in two separate documents, was consistent with this authorization and acknowledged by the Sangguniang Bayan in Resolution No. 38. The petition asserts that the complainants' interpretation of the resolutions and the contract was distorted and inaccurate, and that the Ombudsman ignored the principle of interpreting multiple writings together to ascertain the parties' intent. The petition is filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as provided for by Section 27 of R.A. 6770.
Issue(s)
Whether the Mayor committed grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service in entering into the lease-purchase agreement for heavy equipment. Whether the Sangguniang Bayan's resolutions and actions constituted a valid basis for the Ombudsman's finding of guilt and dismissal order. Whether the Mayor was denied due process in the proceedings before the Ombudsman.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari and affirmed the Resolution of the Ombudsman finding Mayor Felipe K. Constantino guilty of grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and ordering his dismissal from the service.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Mayor's liability for grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service: The Court found that Resolution No. 21, while authorizing a lease/purchase, did not provide parameters for the contract, which Mayor Constantino failed to secure. He entered into a lease agreement with Norlovanian Corporation for six years with a monthly rental of P257,111.11 and a 20% guaranty deposit of P1,780,000.00, without a purchase option, contrary to the municipality's intention to acquire ownership. The Court noted that the Mayor's actions deviated from the spirit of Resolution No. 21, which was intended to facilitate the acquisition of equipment, not merely a long-term lease with no clear path to ownership. The subsequent Resolution No. 47 by the Sangguniang Bayan, stopping payments, highlighted the financial irregularities and the lack of proper budgetary appropriation for lease, further underscoring the Mayor's failure to adhere to fiscal prudence and proper procedure. The Court found that the Mayor's conduct, characterized by entering into an unfavorable and irregular contract, demonstrated a disregard for the best interests of the municipality, constituting grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty. On the validity of the Sangguniang Bayan's resolutions and the Ombudsman's finding: The Court found that the Sangguniang Bayan's subsequent Resolution No. 47, which stopped payments, was a valid exercise of its oversight function. The Court also noted that the complainants' Joint Affidavit contained distorted versions of Resolution No. 21, misrepresenting its authorization as a simple purchase with specific amortization terms, when the resolution actually allowed for a negotiated contract for lease/purchase. The Court emphasized that Resolution No. 21 was silent on specific terms, and the Mayor's contract with Norlovanian Corporation did not align with the municipality's objective of acquiring ownership. The Court also pointed out that Resolution No. 47 failed to reference the prior resolutions that justified the Mayor's contract, suggesting bad faith on the part of the private respondents. However, the Court ultimately upheld the Ombudsman's finding based on the Mayor's actions and the evidence presented, particularly the deviation from the intended lease-purchase and the financial implications. On the denial of due process: The Court dismissed the Mayor's contention that he was denied due process. The Court noted that the Mayor's motions for inhibition and to reset hearings were considered and resolved, albeit adversely to him. The records showed that the impugned order was reviewed by superior officers, including the Ombudsman himself, before its final approval. The Court found no evidence of a denial of due process, as the Mayor was afforded the opportunity to present his side and his motions were acted upon. The Court reiterated that the procedural steps taken by the Ombudsman's office were in accordance with law and regulations, and the Mayor's attempts to delay the proceedings did not constitute a denial of due process.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Mayor Constantino from service for grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, finding that he entered into a lease-purchase agreement for heavy equipment without sufficient parameters and without proper concurrence from the Sangguniang Bayan, deviating from the intent of the authorizing resolution and leading to financial losses for the municipality.