G.R. No. 129036 - Ferrer vs. Office of the Ombudsman

On April 6, 1993, then-NFA Administrator Romeo David issued Special Order No. 04-07 which led to the formation of the NFA Prequalification, Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC) for security services.
The PBAC was charged with pre-qualifying prospective bidders, evaluating bids, and recommending awardees for NFA’s five nationwide areas of operation.
Initially scheduled pre-bidding conference and bidding dates were reset to allow time for bidders to meet documentary requirements.

Petitioner, retired Col. Arturo C. Ferrer, owned Odin Security Agency and initially participated in the bidding for NFA’s Area III.
Odin was disqualified at the pre-qualification stage due to certain deficiencies but later protested, prompting a reconsideration of its disqualification.
Several other agencies, including Metroguard and Davao Security and Investigation Agency, Inc. (DASIA), participated in the public bidding process.

During the bidding held on June 21, 1994, Metroguard and DASIA, identified as “sister” agencies, submitted identical bid prices and strategically withdrew proposals in favor of each other in various areas.
These acts led to allegations of collusion, prompting protests from competing bidders, including Odin.
In response, respondent David sought the opinion of the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC), which, through successive Opinions Nos. 324, 056, and 081 (dated between December 19, 1994, and March 28, 1995), recommended the rejection of the bids of Metroguard and DASIA on the ground of collusion.

DASIA filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City (Civil Case No. 23, 531-95), seeking the annulment of the disqualification and the award of contracts—asserting that the rejection of its bid was illegal and denied due process.
The RTC rendered a decision on November 24, 1995, declaring the rejection of DASIA’s bid as invalid, ordering respondent officials to consider DASIA’s bid in awarding the contract.
While the case was under appeal at the Court of Appeals (CA), respondents proceeded to award the contracts to Metroguard and DASIA.

On August 23, 1996, petitioner filed a Complaint-Affidavit before the Office of the Ombudsman (docketed as OMB-0-96-1986) charging respondent officials with violations of Sections 3(e) and 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
The complaint was dismissed based on the Evaluation Report issued by Graft Investigation Officer (GIO) Bienvenida A. Gruta dated October 25, 1996, which was later approved by then Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto.
Petitioner then moved for reconsideration of the dismissal, asserting additional facts such as Odin’s prior predisqualification and alleging that the investigative officer ignored certain charges (including a violation of R.A. 5487 – Private Security Agency Law).
An Order by GIO Gruta dated February 11, 1997, denied the motion for reconsideration, noting that the complaint was essentially similar to an earlier one (OMB-0-96-1552) and that due process had been afforded.

Whether petitioner’s complaint (OMB-0-96-1986) could be dismissed on the basis of its identical nature and issues with a previously resolved complaint (OMB-0-96-1552).

The controversy involved identical respondents and similar allegations regarding collusion and undue preference in the awarding of security service contracts.
The question raised was if the resolution rendered in the earlier complaint precluded separate consideration of petitioner’s allegations.

Whether the RTC’s Decision (Branch 17, Davao City, Civil Case No. 23, 531-95) could be validly used as the basis for awarding contracts to Metroguard and DASIA despite its appeal and the OGCC’s opinion on collusion.

The issue focused on whether awarding the contracts in light of an appeal and conflicting opinions on bid collusion was legally tenable.
It questioned the appropriateness of relying on an RTC decision that had not been reversed by a higher court.

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to investigate and determine the criminal liability of respondents under R.A. No. 5487 (Private Security Agency Law).

The petitioner argued that the investigative officer failed to assess charges relating to the violation of R.A. 5487, which could lead to the cancellation of a security agency’s license.
The issue also encompassed the limits of jurisdiction and the proper division of authority between the Ombudsman and the Philippine National Police (PNP).