Case Digest (G.R. No. 238563)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 238563)
Facts:
Mansue Nery Lukban v. Ombudsman Conchita Carpiomorales, G.R. No. 238563, February 12, 2020, Supreme Court First Division, Caguioa, J., writing for the Court.This case arose from the PNP procurement controversy known as the "chopper scam" concerning the negotiated purchase of three light police operational helicopters (LPOHs) included in the PNP Annual Procurement Plan for 2008. Petitioner P/SSupt. Mansue Nery Lukban was then Chief of the Management Division of the PNP Directorate for Comptrollership. The National Police Commission issued minimum technical specifications (NAPOLCOM Res. No. 2008-260) for the LPOHs; after failed biddings the PNP proceeded by negotiated procurement under Section 53(b) of the IRR-A of Republic Act No. 9184.
The Negotiation Committee awarded the contract to MAPTRA and the supplier delivered the helicopters in September 2009. The PNP Inspection and Acceptance Committee (IAC), relying on a WTCD report, issued IAC Resolution No. IAC-09-045 declaring conformity with specifications and recommending acceptance; an Inspection Report Form bearing a “Noted by” signature of Lukban was prepared. Subsequent investigations revealed the LPOHs were second-hand and did not meet the required specifications; allegations emerged that the helicopters had been previously owned by a private individual.
The Office of the Ombudsman’s Field Investigation Office filed criminal and administrative complaints (Nov. 25, 2011) charging numerous public and private respondents, including Lukban, with offenses under R.A. No. 3019 (Sec. 3[e], 3[g] ) and administrative charges of Dishonesty, Gross Neglect, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (URACCS) and CSC Resolution No. 991936. In a Joint Resolution dated May 30, 2012, the Ombudsman found Lukban administratively liable for Serious Dishonesty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and ordered dismissal (with alternative fine if dismissal could not be served), and likewise referred criminal charges to the Sandiganbayan; a Motion for Reconsideration was denied (Nov. 5, 2012).
Lukban petitioned the Court of Appeals (CA). In a Decision dated August 20, 2015 the CA (Fourth Division) affirmed the Ombudsman, holding Lukban liable for serious dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the service for signing the Inspection Report without verifying its truthfulness and thereby facilitating payment. Lukban’s MR to the CA was filed late (courier-dated Sept. 28, 2015; CA received Oct. 2, 2015), and the CA denied it as untimely (Resolutions Jan. 18, 2016 and Oct. 10, 2016), holding that private courier filing is not recognized and that the date of actual receipt by the court is the filing date. An Entry of Judgment issued Oct. 13, 2016. Lukban’s further motions were denied (CA Special Fourteenth Division Resolution, Mar. 27, 2018). He then filed a Rule 45 petition before the Supreme Court challenging (1) the CA’s denial of his MR on technical grounds and (2) the substantive finding of administrative liability.
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in denying petitioner Lukban’s motion for reconsideration as filed out of time and refusing to relax procedural rules?
- Was there substantial evidence to hold petitioner Lukban administratively liable for serious dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service (and for conspiracy) in connection with the LPOH procurement?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)