Case Digest (G.R. No. 152188)
Facts:
Florentino R. Brucal and Cesar A. Cruz v. Hon. Aniano A. Desierto, Ombudsman, Hon. Simeon A. Datumanong, Secretary of the Department of Public Works and Highways, and the Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 152188, July 08, 2005, First Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioners Florentino R. Brucal (project engineer) and Cesar A. Cruz (chief of the construction section) were members of the Second Engineering District Prequalification, Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC) of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) and were respondents in Administrative Complaint OMB-ADM-0-93-0173 filed November 18, 1992 by the OMB Task Force on Public Works and Highways following a complaint by the spouses Narciso and Heidi Pita of Manex Construction and Supplies. They were charged with dishonesty, falsification of official documents, grave misconduct, violations of office rules, and conduct prejudicial to the service arising from alleged irregularities in bidding, award and implementation of DPWH contracts in Quezon province.
The Task Force found that on February 5, 1990 the PBAC awarded a P281,475.30 contract for a three-classroom building at Inaclagan Barangay High School to RAM Builders, and that during construction RAM Builders used substandard, commercial-size steel bars and poor lumber and employed improper methods. An oversight committee reported defects; RAM Builders was allowed to resume work only after being required to add reinforcements (six instead of four steel bars per column post), pour concrete over existing foundations and replace poor lumber. RAM Builders submitted a claim for payment and a Statement of Work Accomplished dated April 4, 1990 which bore certifications by RAM Builders (contractor), Engr. Gerardo A. Razo (chief of research and standard section), petitioner Cruz (certifying compliance with plans and specifications), and signatures by petitioner Brucal on the request for inspection and on a certificate of clearance and statement of time elapsed.
The OMB Task Force concluded there were major, deliberate deviations that resulted in substantial defects and recommended administrative sanctions. The Administrative Adjudication Bureau of the Ombudsman, through Graft Investigation Officer Fangon, issued a Resolution dated August 4, 1998 finding petitioners administratively liable for dishonesty and gross neglect of duty and recommending dismissal with forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits and disqualification from reemployment; the Ombudsman approved the Resolution on November 11, 1998. Petitioners’ motions for reconsideration were denied on March 2, 1999.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 53512 affirmed with modification the Ombudsman Resolution by (1) affirming findings of dishonesty and gross neglect of duty against petitioners Cruz and Brucal, and (2) dismissing other related charges against certain respondents on grounds of res judicata or lack of merit. The CA Decision was promulgated June 22, 2001; its denial of petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was rendered November 20, 2001.
Petitioners then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court, seeking reversal of the CA decision and praying for a Temporary Restraining Order and Writ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether petitioners Brucal and Cruz, being respectively the project engineer and the chief of the DPWH construction section, could legally and validly be held administratively liable for dishonesty and gross neglect of duty in signing the Statement of Work Accomplished and Statem...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)