Facts:

The case involves Rash C. Roque, the petitioner, against the Court of Appeals, the Civil Service Commission (CSC), and the Hon. Secretary Jose D. Lina of the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) as respondents. The events leading to this case began with an alleged procurement anomaly at the Bureau of Fire Protection-National Capital Region (BFP-NCR) during the Fourth Quarter of Calendar Year 2002. On December 16, 2002, the BFP-NCR Prequalifications, Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC) issued resolutions recommending the award of contracts for various supplies and materials to several bidders, which Roque, as the Regional Director, approved. The contracts included significant amounts for items such as battery solutions, computer units, and office supplies.

However, on January 2, 2003, several officers of the BFP-NCR reported to Fire Chief Francisco Senot that there were irregularities in the procurement process, including the timing of fund releases and the lack ...

Facts:

Background of the Case
This case involves a petition for review on certiorari filed by Rash C. Roque, the Regional Director of the Bureau of Fire Protection-National Capital Region (BFP-NCR), against the Court of Appeals, Civil Service Commission (CSC), and other respondents. The case arose from alleged anomalies in the procurement of supplies, materials, and equipment for the BFP-NCR during the fourth quarter of 2002.

Procurement Process and Allegations
On December 16, 2002, the BFP-NCR Prequalifications, Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC) issued resolutions recommending the award of contracts to several suppliers for various supplies and equipment. Petitioner Roque approved these awards and issued Notices of Award to the following suppliers:

• Rakish General Merchandise for battery solution and barricade tapes.
• Mitoni Business Ventures for computer units, spare parts, and office supplies.
• Rich River Commercial for Good Year tires.
• Lubhag Enterprises for electrical and janitorial supplies.
• A. Rouge Printing Corporation for computer units and accessories.
• Miralles Trading for computer supplies.

The total amount of the contracts exceeded P4 million. The suppliers were paid through checks signed by Roque and the Chief of Finance Service Unit, Danilo dela Peña. The checks were encashed between December 27, 2002, and January 6, 2003.

Complaint and Investigation
On January 2, 2003, several BFP-NCR officers reported anomalies in the procurement process. They alleged that:

• The bidding process was completed unusually quickly, with payments made before the supplies were fully delivered.
• The fourth quarter operational support fund was released ahead of the third quarter fund, which remained unliquidated.
• Petitioner authorized advance payments for minor maintenance of fire trucks amounting to approximately P750,000.

An investigation team was formed, and an inventory of the stockroom was conducted. The team discovered that:

• No actual bidding took place.
• The supplies were overpriced by approximately P1,067,025.50.
• Some items, such as electrical supplies and barricade tapes, were paid for but not found in the stockroom.

Petitioner’s Defense
Petitioner Roque denied the allegations, claiming that the PBAC members performed their duties properly and that the supplies were procured in good faith. He also alleged that the complainants had personal grudges against him. However, he failed to file an Answer to the formal charges and did not appear during the preliminary hearings.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Due Process in Administrative Proceedings: The essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard. Petitioner was given this opportunity but failed to avail himself of it by not filing an Answer or attending the hearings. His counter-affidavit was considered but found insufficient to controvert the evidence against him.
2. Grave Misconduct: Misconduct becomes grave when it involves corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or disregard of established rules. Petitioner’s actions in approving payments without proper certifications and disregarding procurement rules demonstrated a willful intent to violate the law.
3. Penalty for Grave Misconduct: Under the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations, grave misconduct is punishable by dismissal for the first offense, along with forfeiture of retirement benefits and disqualification from reemployment.

The Court emphasized that public officers must adhere strictly to procurement laws and procedures to ensure the proper use of public funds. Petitioner’s actions constituted a serious breach of these duties, justifying his dismissal.