G.R. No. 250763 - Westfall vs. Locsin

The controversy arose from the procurement of three Light Police Operational Helicopters (LPOHs) by the Philippine National Police (PNP) under its modernization program for calendar year 2008, having an Approved Budget for a Contract (ABC) of ₱105,000,000.00.
The procurement was based on technical specifications set forth in NAPOLCOM Resolution No. 2008-260, which provided detailed requirements for power plant rating, speed, range, endurance, service ceiling, gross weight, seating capacity, ventilating system, aircraft instruments, and standard police equipment.
Initial public bidding by the PNP National Headquarters-Bids and Awards Committee (NHQ-BAC) on August 27, 2008 was deferred due to information that the available budget was insufficient to cover both the helicopters and the police equipment/accessories.

A consolidation of two sets of aircraft procurement (three rotary aircraft units and three LPOHs) into one bidding lot with a modified ABC of ₱216,000,000.00.
The procurement of only three helicopters to be equipped with the required police operational equipment, while the other three units would be delivered as basic or bare units.

Subsequent public bidding resulted in the participation of Manila Aerospace and Aerotech Industries; however, both failed to submit the necessary eligibility documents, leading to a declared failure of the bidding process.

Due to successive failed bids, alternative negotiations were initiated. In March 2009, negotiations led to an arrangement for the procurement of three helicopters (including two pre-owned and one brand new) from MAPTRA (Manila Aerospace Products Trading).
On June 15, 2009, after a scheduled negotiation, MAPTRA (operating as a sole proprietorship) was awarded the contract. Their proposal was accepted on the basis that their helicopters were consistent with the approved specifications, within the ABC, and MAPTRA was viewed as legally, technically, and financially capable.
The subsequent supply contract obligated MAPTRA to deliver one fully-equipped and two standard LPOHs with a contract price totaling approximately ₱104,985,000.00. Purchase orders were issued, and deliveries were made accordingly.

The Inspection and Acceptance Committee (IAC), which included the respondent (P/C Supt. Luis L. Saligumba), was responsible for examining deliveries to ensure that the helicopters conformed to the technical specifications and the requirements stipulated in the contract.
The Weapons and Tactics and Communications Division (WTCD) Report No. T2009-04A, prepared during inspection, showed discrepancies. Although the report indicated conformity, it contained equivocal entries:

For the endurance requirement: “No available data” was noted.
For the ventilating system: the helicopters were recorded as “Not airconditioned,” contrary to the NAPOLCOM specification which mandated an air-conditioned system.

Resolution No. IAC-09-045, signed by the respondent among others, attested that the inspected helicopters conformed with the NAPOLCOM-approved specifications and passed the acceptance criteria.

A complaint was filed by the Field Investigation Office before the Office of the Ombudsman, alleging several irregularities in the procurement process.
The complaint charged the respondent and his co-members of the IAC with violations including falsification of public documents, violations under R.A. No. 3019, and administrative offenses such as serious dishonesty, gross neglect of duty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
On May 30, 2012, the Ombudsman issued a Joint Resolution finding the respondent liable for serious dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the service, imposing penalties that included dismissal or a fine equivalent to one year’s salary.
The respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied. He then appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that he had acted in good faith based on the recommendations of experts in the composite technical inspection team.
In the CA Decision dated October 23, 2013, the Court reversed the Ombudsman’s findings and exonerated the respondent from administrative liability. A subsequent Resolution dated April 23, 2014 by the CA further affirmed his exoneration.

Whether the act of affixing a signature on Resolution No. IAC-09-045 by the respondent, which attested to the conformity of the helicopters despite notable irregularities in the WTCD Report, constitutes an act of serious dishonesty punishable under administrative rules.
Whether the respondent’s reliance on the technical recommendations and the expertise of his subordinates and the composite technical inspection team absolved him of personal responsibility for failing to further verify the compliance of the helicopters with the approved technical specifications.
Whether the evidence of irregularities in the WTCD Report—specifically, the absence of proper data regarding the endurance and the lack of an air-conditioning system—provides a sufficient basis to hold the respondent administratively liable.
Whether the reversal by the CA of the Ombudsman’s findings was legally tenable considering the standard of substantial evidence required to sustain administrative liability and the principle that public officers must exercise due diligence in the procurement process.