G.R. No. 231042 - Minao vs. Office of the Ombudsman

Petitioner Arturo O. MiAao, former OIC District Engineer of the DPWH Zamboanga del Norte 1st District Engineering Office, Dipolog City, was charged before the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao (OMB-Mindanao), together with co-respondents Manolito G. Abapo and Clemente A. Tabiliran.
They were accused of administrative liability for Grave Misconduct, Gross Neglect of Duty, Serious Dishonesty, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of Service in connection with the procurement of guardrails and guardrail posts worth ₱5,500,000.00 in 2004.
The administrative charges were affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 05743-MIN, whose decision and resolution prompted this petition for review on certiorari.

Aurelio Cadavedo filed a letter-complaint dated October 14, 2005, alleging anomalous procurement in the 1st Engineering District of DPWH Sta. Isabel, Dipolog City.
The Commission on Audit Regional Office No. IX (COA-IX) conducted an audit investigation and submitted a report dated October 5, 2006, finding:

Splitting of contracts by issuing 11 purchase orders worth ₱500,000.00 each to the same supplier, AUF Enterprises, without public bidding.
Procurement of overpriced and substandard materials, resulting in wastage amounting to ₱40,110.00.

Petitioner and co-respondents denied the allegations, asserting that the Special Allotment Release Order (SARO) issued by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) had already divided the projects into 11 sub-projects each worth ₱500,000.00, and thus their actions complied with applicable laws.

The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao, in a March 8, 2013 Decision, found petitioner and his co-respondents administratively liable and ordered their dismissal from government service with accessory penalties.
The OMB-Mindanao observed that the procurement involved identical materials supplied by a single supplier and found the division into 11 contracts to constitute prohibited splitting of government contracts under RA 9184.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision and the denial of the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner on March 30, 2017.
Petitioner filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court.

Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in disregarding petitioner’s interpretation and implementation of SARO No. RO-IX 2003-353 issued by the DBM.
Whether petitioner may be held administratively liable for Grave Misconduct, Gross Neglect of Duty, Serious Dishonesty, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service for allegedly failing to follow RA 9184 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) in implementing the SARO.