Title
Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao vs. Martel
Case
G.R. No. 221134
Decision Date
Mar 1, 2017
Provincial officials bypassed public bidding for vehicle procurement, violating procurement laws. SC upheld dismissal for grave misconduct and gross neglect, emphasizing public trust and strict legal compliance.
administrative penalty
dismissal from service
illegal procurement
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 221134)

Facts:

  • Parties and capacities
    • Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao (Ombudsman) acted as complainant and administrative disciplining authority in Case No. OMB-M-A-05-450-L.
    • Richard T. Martel (Martel) served as Provincial Accountant of Davao del Sur in 2003 and acted as an ex officio member of the Provincial Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC).
    • Abel A. Guinares (Guinares) served as Provincial Treasurer of Davao del Sur in 2003 and acted as an ex officio member of the PBAC.
    • Other PBAC members in the procurement process were Victoria Givero Mier (Mier) (Provincial Budget Officer), Edgar Cajiling Gan (Gan) (Provincial Board Member), and Allan Putong (Putong) (Provincial General Services Officer (PGSO)).
  • Procurement events involving service vehicles
    • The Office of the Governor of Davao del Sur made Purchase Requests dated January 24, 2003, February 18, 2003, and July 15, 2003.
    • The purchase requests sought acquisition of five (5) service vehicles for the use of the Governor and Vice-Governor:
      • two (2) Toyota Hilux 4x4 SR5,
      • one (1) Mitsubishi L300 Exceed DX, and
      • two (2) Ford Ranger XLT 4x4 M/T.
    • The procurement was not subjected to public bidding and was immediately effected through direct purchase, pursuant to the recommendation of Putong as PGSO.
    • The PBAC recommendation was approved by the PBAC members, including Martel and Guinares.
    • The vehicles were purchased and delivered to the provincial government.
    • The disbursement vouchers for the five (5) vehicles were signed by Martel as Provincial Accountant and Guinares as Provincial Treasurer.
  • Trigger and Ombudsman investigation
    • A concerned citizen wrote to the Ombudsman reporting the lack of public bidding in the procurement.
    • Acting on the complaint, the Ombudsman launched an investigation on the acquisition of the vehicles.
  • Ombudsman’s findings of administrative liability (June 14, 2012 Decision; February 25, 2011 Decision referenced)
    • In a Decision dated June 14, 2012, the Ombudsman found Martel, Guinares, Putong, and Mier guilty of:
      • grave misconduct, and
      • gross neglect of duty.
    • The Ombudsman found Gan relieved of administrative liability due to his re-election as provincial board member.
    • The decretal portion ordered:
      • dismissal from service with all accessory penalties for Martel, Putong, Mier, and Guinares; and
      • the incumbent Honorable Governor of Davao del Sur to implement the Decision and submit a compliance report within ten (10) days from implementation.
  • Motions for reconsideration and Ombudsman’s partial modification (February 28, 2013 Order)
    • Martel, Guinares, Mier, and Putong moved for reconsideration.
    • They argued they had no intent to commit irregularity because they only approved the recommendation of Putong to directly purchase the vehicles.
    • Putong asserted he merely adopted previous office practice because vehicles were purchased from car dealers as no one participated in public bidding of vehicles.
    • Putong added he was removed as PGSO in 2004 and claimed he was not a party to the whole procurement process.
    • In an Order dated February 28, 2013, the Ombudsman partially granted the motion for reconsideration of Putong.
    • The Ombudsman lowered Putong’s penalty from dismissal to one (1) year suspension without pay because Putong had limited participation after being relieved as PGSO in 2004 pursuant to Memorandum Order No. 221-2004.
    • The Ombudsman sustained the dismissal penalty against Martel, Guinares, and Mier due to their full participation in the acquisition of the vehicles.
    • The fallo in the February 28, 2013 Order denied the motions of Martel and Guinares and sustained the February 25, 2011 Decision as to them.
    • The Order directed the Provincial Governor to implement:
      • dismissal with all accessory penalties for Martel, Guinares, and Mier and submit compliance within five (5) days from receipt; and
      • one (1) year suspension without pay for Putong and submit a compliance report within five (5) days from receipt.
  • Court of Appeals proceedings (Rule 43 appeal; February 4, 2015 Decision; October 16, 2015 Resolution)
    • Martel and Guinares appealed to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
    • In a Decision dated February 4, 2015, the Court of Appeals found the PBAC committed a violation when it resorted to a negotiated purchase even without prior public bidding.
    • The Court of Appeals ruled that under R.A. No. 9184 and R.A. No. 7160, negotiated procurement could only be resorted to when there were two (2) failed biddings.
    • The Court of Appeals held there was no failure of bidding because no public bidding was ever conducted.
      • ...(Subscriber-Only)

Issues:

  • Whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in interpreting the law when it automatically considered length of service as a mitigating circumstance in favor of Martel and Guinares.
    • The Ombudsman argued that length of service could not automatically mitigate grave administrative offenses.
    • The Ombudsman contended that respondents’ extensive service should have increased their knowledge of procurement laws and should have discouraged them from bypassing public bidding.
    • The Ombudsman also argued that mitigation was unwarranted because Putong’s lesser participation differed from respondents’ full participation, including signing the disbursement vouchers.
  • Whether Martel and Guinares could avoid liability by claiming they merely followed Putong’s recommendation.
    • The Ombudsman argued that PBAC members had final and independent authority to determine procurement mode and could not pass responsibility to others.
    • The Ombudsman asserted that signing of disbursement vouchers showed active participation.
    ...(Subscriber-Only)

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms