Title
Reyes vs. Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon
Case
G.R. No. 230704
Decision Date
Mar 15, 2023
Ombudsman accused BAC members of graft in Palauig procurement favoring a relative-owned supplier; SC ruled no probable cause, citing compliance with procurement laws and lack of bad faith.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 230704)

Applicable Law

The main statutes involved include:

  • Republic Act No. 3019, known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, particularly Section 3(e) addressing undue advantage and manifest partiality.
  • Republic Act No. 9184, the Government Procurement Reform Act, specifically Section 47 related to the disclosure of relationships among bidders and members of the BAC.

Background

On February 26, 2015, a complaint was filed by the Field Investigation Office II of the Office of the Ombudsman against the BAC members of Palauig, including Reyes, for alleged corrupt practices. The complaint stemmed from a post-audit examination by the Commission on Audit (COA) which indicated procurement irregularities during 2006 concerning the acquisition of office supplies. The COA noted that the procurement was executed without an Annual Procurement Plan (APP) and demonstrated favoritism towards Tabing Daan Mart, a supplier owned by Reyes' sister.

Ombudsman's Findings

The Ombudsman found probable cause to indict Reyes and other BAC members for violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, arguing they acted with manifest partiality by not disqualifying Tabing Daan Mart despite the familial relationship. The Ombudsman indicated that even if the procurement method was "Shopping," the principles of transparency and equity necessitated such disclosures.

Petitioner’s Arguments

Reyes contends that the Ombudsman erroneously applied Section 47 retroactively, as it was enacted after the procurement in question. She also argued that the relationship disclosure requirement was not applicable to alternative procurement methods like Shopping. Lastly, she challenged whether all elements of manifest partiality and actual injury, as necessary for a violation of R.A. No. 3019, were present.

Resolution of the Supreme Court

The Court acknowledged its authority to review the Ombudsman’s exercise of discretion, particularly in cases alleging grave abuse. After examining the records, the Court found that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in their determination of probable cause.

Examination of Retroactive Application

The Court established that the Ombudsman did not retroactively apply the provisions of Section 47 since the 2003 Implementing Rules were in effect prior to the procurement activities of 2006. Therefore, the alleged application of this provision was not valid grounds for invoking the lack of probable cause against Reyes and the BAC members.

Evaluation of the Disclosure Requirement

The Court highlighted that the procurement of goods through alternative methods like Shopping is governed by different considerations than competitive bidding. It found that Section 47’s requirement for disclosure was not mandatory in the context of alternative

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.