G.R. No. 219876 - Serrano vs. Fact-Finding Investigation Bureau, Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices

The case involves a petition for review on certiorari filed by Jaime V. Serrano challenging the rulings of the Ombudsman and the subsequent decisions of the Court of Appeals.
The proceedings concern allegations arising from irregular procurement practices in connection with the repair and refurbishing contracts for twenty‐eight (28) V-150 Light Armored Vehicles (LAVs) used by the Philippine National Police (PNP).

In August 2007, the PNP initiated the repair and refurbishing of an initial batch of ten (10) LAVs, followed by a request to include an additional eighteen (18) LAVs.
The Department of Budget and Management (DBM) released an aggregate amount of P409,740,000.00 for the project.
Critical irregularities were noted in the procurement process:

The Logistics Support Service – Bids and Awards Committee (LSS-BAC) failed to provide bidding documents to potential bidders.
There was an absence of a pre-procurement conference and pre-bid conference.
Invitations to bid were published in a media outlet of questionable circulation.
Essential eligibility requirements, technical documents, and financial submissions were not enforced.
Post-qualification procedures were lacking, and award and payment were hastily processed.
Ghost deliveries of engines and transmissions were allegedly made.

Jaime V. Serrano served as the COA Supervisor and Resident Auditor of the PNP and was charged with ensuring the proper audit of government transactions.
As such, his duty encompassed both pre-audit and post-audit activities, including the verification of document submissions mandated by COA rules and regulations.
Specific allegations against him included:

Failing to prioritize or conduct a timely audit of the high-value LAV transactions.
Neglecting to act on red flags by not notifying PNP management of the non-compliance issues.
Not ordering the suspension of payments for PNP employees who did not submit the required documents, as dictated by COA Circular No. 95-006.
Relying on a delegation of inspection duties to subordinate Technical Audit Specialist Amor J. Quiambao in lieu of his own active supervision.

The Ombudsman, through a Joint Resolution dated December 19, 2012, found Serrano guilty of grave misconduct and serious dishonesty, imposing dismissal from service with various accompanying penalties.
Petitioner’s counter-affidavits and position papers argued that:

The lifting of pre-audit activities under COA Circular No. 95-006 absolved him from some of his audit functions.
The enormous volume of PNP transactions and his heavy workload rendered it physically impossible to audit every transaction.
His instruction to subordinate personnel indicated that he was not entirely neglectful in his duties.

The Court of Appeals, in its decision dated January 29, 2015, affirmed the administrative liability, rejecting petitioner’s defenses, and later denied his motion for reconsideration.

The record includes multiple affidavits, counter-affidavits, position papers, and official documents (e.g., COA Circulars, audit reports, and administrative orders) establishing:

The detailed procurement process and the irregularities involved.
The specific COA rules and conditions that were allegedly violated by the petitioner.
The absence of timely remedial actions despite clear red flags in the documentation.

Whether the petitioner’s failure to perform his requisite audit functions as COA Supervisor and Resident Auditor—specifically, his inaction in conducting both pre-audit and post-audit reviews of the LAV transactions—was justified under the circumstances.
Whether such inaction, particularly in the context of a high-value transaction (P409,740,000.00) and repeated non-compliance with mandatory document submissions, constitutes grave misconduct.
Whether the additional charge of serious dishonesty is warranted, or if the petitioner’s conduct should be classified solely as grave misconduct.
Whether the justifications offered by the petitioner (heavy workload, understaffing, and delegation to a subordinate) suffice to mitigate his administrative liability.
Whether the imposition of dismissal from service and the accompanying penalties are proportionate to the nature of the infraction, considering his long years (37 years) of public service.