G.R. No. 223768 - Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices vs. Saligumba

The PNP’s Annual Procurement Plan for CY 2008, under the Capability Enhancement Program Funds, envisaged procurement of 75 police rubber boats (PRBs) and 18 spare outboard motors (OBMs) to be used by the PNP Maritime Group (MG).
The MG, as end-user, constituted a Technical Working Group (TWG) tasked with determining the best suited watercraft for maritime law enforcement and security.

The MG-TWG initially formulated and later revised, on October 20, 2008, the recommended technical specifications for the watercraft.
The revised specifications detailed measurements for length, breadth, inside dimensions, capacity, engine power, and speed; they reflected minimum requirements deemed necessary for operational purposes.
The recommendations were approved through resolutions by the MG Director and later transmitted to the PNP Uniform and Equipment Standardization Board (UESB).
The UESB, in its Resolution No. 2008-34 dated November 7, 2008, adopted the MG-TWG recommendations in toto and endorsed them to the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM), which subsequently modified certain requirements via Resolution No. 2009-223 on April 16, 2009.

On September 9, 2009, the PNP National Headquarters Bids and Awards Committee (NHQ BAC) opened bids for 75 PRBs and 18 spare OBMs; three proponents participated in the bidding.
Only one of the joint ventures passed the eligibility check, but pre-existing conditions, including the impact of typhoons Ondoy and Pepeng, led the NHQ BAC to recommend discontinuance of the bidding process in Resolution No. 2009-61 dated October 19, 2009, and to resort to negotiated procurement.
A Negotiation Committee was then formed on October 21, 2009, to negotiate with the invited suppliers, requiring adherence to the approved NAPOLCOM specifications, delivery within two weeks, and pricing at or lower than the public bid.

Finding that no single supplier could deliver the full requirement within the stipulated period, the NHQ BAC revised the procurement method and approved separate purchases for the PRBs and OBMs.
On December 18, 2009, contracts were awarded to the participating suppliers—EnviroAire, Geneve, and Bay Industrial—with specific delivery schedules and contract amounts detailed, including disbursement vouchers issued for accepted deliveries.
The PRBs and OBMs were delivered in phases:

Geneve delivered 41 PRBs between December 29, 2009, and April 6, 2010.
EnviroAire delivered 24 PRBs and 93 OBMs in multiple shipments from December 29, 2009, through March 2010.
Bay Industrial delivered 10 PRBs at a later date.

Multiple inspection reports were generated by the PNP Directorate for Comptrollership (DC) and the Directorate for Research and Development (DRD), including WTCD reports and IAC resolutions, confirming that, based on available reports, the delivered items ostensibly conformed to the NAPOLCOM-approved specifications.

Following the initial acceptance and payment of the deliveries, the MG-TICW conducted further inspections and sea trials, discovering various deficiencies and noting that the deliveries did not function properly when components were fitted together.
The issues raised attracted media attention and led to an investigation by the FFIB, OMB-MOLEO into the procurement process.
The investigation resulted in a Complaint for Gross Neglect of Duty and Gross Incompetence filed against 21 PNP officials and officers, including respondent Luis L. Saligumba, a member of the Inspection and Acceptance Committee (IAC).

In his counter-affidavit, respondent Saligumba contended that his role, as an IAC member, was limited to endorsing the inspection reports (WTCD) prepared by the DRD and that he did not personally inspect the equipment.
He argued that his concurrence with the recommendation did not equate to an active lapse in duty, asserting that the technical inspections were competently carried out by experts and that the subsequent reports indicated conformity to specifications.

On January 9, 2013, the Office of the Ombudsman rendered a Decision finding respondent Saligumba, along with other IAC members, guilty of simple neglect of duty, imposing a penalty of suspension for six months without pay.
The Ombudsman justified the finding by emphasizing that IAC members were expected to ensure complete conformity of deliveries with procurement documents, a duty which they failed to fully execute.
The decision was later set aside by the Court of Appeals (CA) on December 23, 2014, on the basis of unequal application of the penalty among officials and other mitigating explanations related to the procurement process.
The Ombudsman’s motion for reconsideration was denied in March 2016, prompting the petition for review addressed by the Supreme Court on February 22, 2017.

The Supreme Court, in its decision, reversed and set aside the CA’s ruling, reinstating the Ombudsman’s decision that found the respondent guilty of simple neglect of duty.
The Court underscored that the reliance on incomplete inspection reports and failure to personally verify the delivered equipment amounted to a disregard of the responsibilities laid out by the PNP Procurement Manual.
The decision also invoked the principle of equal protection, noting the disparity in the penalties imposed on different members of the IAC despite similar roles and responsibilities.

Whether there exists sufficient and substantial evidence to uphold the charge of simple neglect of duty against respondent Luis L. Saligumba.

Did the evidence show that his reliance on technical inspection reports, without personal verification, amounted to a neglect of his mandatory duty?
Was the failure to ensure that the equipment strictly conformed to the NAPOLCOM specifications a defect attributable to his oversight?

Whether the disparate penalties imposed on members of the IAC, particularly the lighter penalty for other members compared to the six-month suspension for respondent Saligumba, violate the constitutional right to equal protection under the law.

Whether the procurement irregularities, including segmented procurement (separate purchase of PRBs and OBMs) and procedural lapses in inspection, contributed to the functional incompatibility of the equipment, thus implicating the IAC in neglect of duty.