G.R. No. 222998 - Turiano vs. Task Force Abono

The case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari challenging the decisions rendered by the Ombudsman and the Court of Appeals.
Atty. Aldo P. Turiano, who served as the Chairman of the Pre-qualification Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC) for the City of Iriga, is the petitioner challenging administrative sanctions imposed on him.
The disputed administrative case originated from irregularities in the procurement process for fertilizers under the Farm Inputs and Farm Implements Program (FIFIP) of the Department of Agriculture.

On February 3, 2004, the Department of Budget and Management issued a Special Allotment Release Order amounting to P728,000,000.00, with a Notice of Cash Allocation for P291,200,000.00, intended for FIFIP.
Iriga City received a P3,000,000.00 sub-allotment fund.
On April 26, 2004, a PBAC meeting chaired by Turiano was convened, at the request of City Agriculturist Edwin S. Lapuz, to expedite the purchase of fertilizers through emergency means, given that most farmers could not afford the needed inputs.
Except for one dissenting member, the PBAC approved the purchase on the basis of a Certificate of Emergency Purchase, thereby bypassing the usual public bidding process.
Iriga City proceeded to purchase 789 liters/bottles of “Young Magic Foliar Fertilizer” via negotiated sale from Madarca Trading at P3,800.00 per liter, totaling nearly P3,000,000.00.
Delivery of the product ensued on April 27, 2004, as evidenced by the Certificate of Acceptance, and subsequent payments were made in two installments.

On April 19, 2011, Task Force Abono of the Field Investigation Office of the Ombudsman filed a complaint charging Turiano, other PBAC members, and local government officials with various offenses.
The charges included violations of Republic Act No. 3019 (in relation to R.A. No. 9184), violations pursuant to Section 88 of COA Circular No. 92-386, as well as allegations of dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (URACCS).
Specific allegations asserted that the procurement procedure was manipulated to favor Madarca Trading, that standard procurement protocols (such as public bidding or canvassing of prices) were bypassed, and that discrepancies existed in delivery documentation versus the disbursement voucher.

In a decision dated April 26, 2013, the Ombudsman found Turiano, along with officials Lapuz and Aida V. Estonido, administratively liable for dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
Turiano’s administrative penalty mandated dismissal from service (with accessory penalties), though if dismissal could not be enforced, it would convert to a fine equivalent to one year’s salary.
Turiano filed both a Verified Motion for Reconsideration (July 14, 2014) and a Supplemental Motion (July 22, 2014), which were later denied by the Ombudsman in the Order dated August 13, 2014.
The decision emphasized that Turiano, by signing the Acceptance and Inspection Reports and the corresponding check—despite noted discrepancies in the quantity of fertilizers delivered—was complicit in the irregularities.

On November 6, 2015, the CA affirmed the Ombudsman’s decision, holding that Turiano had the requisite opportunity to be heard and that his due process rights were not violated.
The CA concurred with the factual findings regarding the procurement anomalies and the evidentiary basis for concluding that Turiano had participated in the irregular transaction as PBAC Chairman.
Turiano’s further appeal to the CA, including assertions regarding procedural defects and the alleged impartiality of the Ombudsman, was likewise rejected in a Resolution dated February 15, 2016.

Turiano contended that his procedural right to due process was violated because he was not adequately informed of the precise nature of the charges against him.
He argued that his role as merely a signatory should have shielded him from liability, relying on prior jurisprudence (e.g., Arias) to support his reliance on the representations of his colleagues and subordinates.
The petitioner further claimed that the Ombudsman acted in a dual capacity—both as prosecutor and adjudicator—thereby pre-judging him and failing to ensure impartiality.

Whether the Petition should be dismissed pursuant to Section 5, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court on the ground that it raises questions of fact rather than exclusively questions of law.
Whether Turiano’s right to due process was violated, particularly in regard to the adequacy of the charges and the opportunity provided for his defense.
Whether the evidentiary record supports the finding of a conspiracy involving Turiano, Lapuz, Estonido, and former Mayor Alfelor in defrauding the government.
Whether Turiano failed to exercise the diligence and prudence required in his role as PBAC Chairman, thereby justifying the imposition of administrative sanctions.