Case Digest (G.R. No. 237837)
Facts:
The case involves petitioners Emmanuel Cedro Andaya, Atty. Sylvia Crisostomo Banda, Josefina San Pedro Samson, Engr. Antonio Villaroman Sillona, Bernadette Tecson Lagumen, and Maria Gracia De Leon Enriquez, who were officials of the National Printing Office (NPO) at the time of the events. Andaya served as the Acting Director, while the others were members of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC). On September 2, 2010, the NPO Technical Working Group submitted a purchase request for the checkup, repair, and supply of parts for Elevator II, with an estimated cost of P680,000.00. Three suppliers submitted quotations, but on December 13, 2010, the BAC resolved to resort to negotiated procurement, citing the urgency of the elevator's repair to avoid operational delays and the need to utilize the allocated budget before the fiscal year ended. The BAC awarded the contract to Eastland Printink, Inc. (EPI), which had the lowest quotation of P665,000.00.
The Field Investigation O...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 237837)
Facts:
Background of the Parties
- Petitioners were officials of the National Printing Office (NPO):
- Emmanuel Cedro Andaya: Acting Director of the NPO.
- Atty. Sylvia Crisostomo Banda: Chairman of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC).
- Josefina San Pedro Samson: Vice Chairman of the BAC.
- Engr. Antonio Villaroman Sillona, Bernadette Tecson Lagumen, and Maria Gracia De Leon Enriquez: Members of the BAC.
Procurement Request
- On September 2, 2010, the NPO Technical Working Group submitted a purchase request to the BAC for the repair and supply of parts for Elevator II, with an estimated cost of P680,000.00.
- Three suppliers submitted quotations: Eastland Printink, Inc. (EPI), C.A. Enterprises, and Giraqui Trading.
Resort to Negotiated Procurement
- On December 13, 2010, the BAC passed a Resolution opting for negotiated procurement, citing:
- Delays in repair would hamper NPO operations and cause government losses.
- The allocated budget needed to be disbursed before the fiscal year ended to avoid reversion to the general fund.
- The Notice of Award was issued to EPI, which had the lowest quotation at P665,000.00.
Complaint by the Field Investigation Office (FIO)
- The FIO filed a complaint against petitioners for:
- Serious Dishonesty, Gross Neglect of Duty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Interest of the Service.
- The FIO alleged that:
- The BAC failed to justify the use of negotiated procurement under Section 53(b) of Republic Act (RA) No. 9184 (Government Procurement Reform Act).
- The elevator repair did not pose an imminent danger to life or property, nor was it necessary to restore vital services.
- EPI, a printing company, was unqualified for elevator repair services.
- Andaya negligently allowed the BAC to adopt negotiated procurement without complying with RA 9184.
Petitioners' Defense
- Petitioners argued that:
- The elevator was used to transport heavy materials, and its repair was urgent to restore public services.
- They acted in good faith and had no intent to circumvent RA 9184.
- EPI was qualified as its secondary purpose included general construction.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- (Unlock)
Ratio:
Violation of RA 9184
- RA 9184 mandates competitive bidding as the primary mode of procurement, with alternative methods allowed only in highly exceptional cases.
- Negotiated procurement under Section 53(b) is permitted only in cases of imminent danger to life or property or to restore vital public services.
- Petitioners failed to justify the use of negotiated procurement:
- The elevator repair was not urgent, as the purchase request was made two months after the elevator became non-operational.
- The elevator was not indispensable to NPO operations, as it was only used for transporting materials.
- The need to disburse funds before the fiscal year ended was not a valid justification.
Grave Misconduct
- Misconduct involves unlawful behavior or gross neglect of duty. It becomes grave when it includes corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules.
- Petitioners' actions demonstrated a willful intent to disregard RA 9184, resulting in undue benefits to EPI.
Gross Neglect of Duty
- Gross Neglect of Duty is characterized by a conscious indifference to consequences and a failure to exercise even slight care.
- Petitioners' failure to comply with procurement rules and their hasty award of the contract to an unqualified contractor constituted gross neglect.
Penalty of Dismissal
- Grave Misconduct and Gross Neglect of Duty are serious offenses warranting dismissal from service under Section 46 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
- The penalty serves to uphold public trust and accountability in government service.
Public Office as a Public Trust
- Public officers must serve with integrity, efficiency, and accountability.
- Petitioners' actions undermined the government's procurement process and violated the constitutional standard of conduct for public servants.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of petitioners, emphasizing the importance of strict compliance with procurement laws and the high standards expected of public officials.