G.R. No. 179245 - Roque vs. Court of Appeals

The case involves Rash C. Roque, who was dismissed from public service for grave misconduct related to procurement anomalies at the Bureau of Fire Protection-National Capital Region (BFP-NCR).
The allegations stemmed from a procurement process for supplies in the fourth quarter of 2002, where it was claimed that no actual bidding occurred, and contracts were awarded without proper procedures.
Roque, as the Regional Director, approved several contracts and payments to various suppliers, which were later questioned by BFP-NCR officers.

Complaints were filed by BFP-NCR officers regarding the procurement process, citing irregularities such as the timing of fund releases and unauthorized signatories.
An investigation was initiated, leading to the discovery that the procurement process did not follow established bidding procedures, and several items were reported as missing from the stockroom.
The investigation concluded that Roque and other officials were involved in grave misconduct, including violations of procurement rules and suppression of evidence.

Following the investigation, Roque was formally charged with grave misconduct, which included failing to follow procurement procedures and approving payments without necessary certifications.
Roque did not submit a timely answer to the charges and failed to appear at preliminary hearings, leading to a waiver of his right to present evidence.
The DILG Secretary found Roque guilty and dismissed him from service, a decision that was upheld by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) and later by the Court of Appeals.

Roque contended that his constitutional right to due process was violated, arguing that his counter-affidavit was not properly considered and that he was not given a fair opportunity to defend himself.
The Court found that Roque was given ample opportunity to respond to the charges and that his failure to do so did not constitute a denial of due process.
The Court emphasized that the acceptance of his counter-affidavit, despite its late submission, indicated that procedural rules were applied liberally in administrative proceedings.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the CSC's finding of grave misconduct, noting that Roque's actions demonstrated a willful disregard for established procurement rules.
The Court highlighted that Roque's approval of disbursement vouchers without the necessary certifications constituted a serious violation of his duties as a public officer.
The Court reiterated that grave misconduct is defined as unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer, warranting severe penalties, including dismissal.

...