Case Digest (G.R. No. 235595)
Facts:
Cesar C. Paita v. Task Force Abono Field Investigation Office, Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 235595, December 07, 2022, Supreme Court Second Division, Lopez, J., writing for the Court.In 2004 the DBM released Php 291,200,000.00 for the Department of Agriculture’s Farm Inputs and Farm Implements Program; the Province of Camarines Norte was allotted Php 5,000,000.00 for agricultural supplies. A Memorandum of Agreement was executed between the DA Regional Executive Director and Governor Jesus O. Typoco, Jr. For the province, Cesar C. Paita was the Provincial Engineer and a member of the Provincial Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC).
On April 16, 2004 the PBAC issued BAC Resolution No. 2004-01 recommending direct contracting for liquid fertilizer from Hexaphil Agriventures, Inc. for Php 5,000,000.00. Hexaphil certified it was the sole distributor of Hexaplus in Region V, and officials (the Provincial Agriculturist and General Services Officer) certified no suitable substitute existed. Paita signed the Resolution and the province issued disbursement vouchers and checks for the purchase.
Pursuant to CSC Resolution No. 99136, the Task Force Abono, Field Investigation Office of the Ombudsman filed an administrative charge on May 2, 2011. The Ombudsman issued a Decision dated November 12, 2013 finding Paita guilty of Grave Misconduct and Conduct Grossly Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and imposed dismissal; reconsideration was denied May 27, 2015. Paita elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals, which in a Decision dated May 31, 2017 affirmed the Ombudsman’s findings; a motion for reconsideration was denied October 11, 2017.
Paita filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court, assigning errors that include alleged violation of his constitutional right to a speedy disposition, that the CA erred in affirming his culpability for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the service, and that his long and unbl...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was Paita’s constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases violated?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming that Paita was guilty of grave misconduct?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming that Paita was guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service?
- Should Paita’s unblemished length of public service be ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)