Title
Roque vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 179245
Decision Date
Jul 23, 2008
A BFP-NCR official was dismissed for grave misconduct after approving irregular procurements, overpayments, and violating procurement rules, despite due process.
dismissal from public service
grave misconduct
procurement of supplies
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 179245)

Factual Background: The Procurement and the Alleged Anomaly

For the fourth quarter of CY 2002, the BFP–NCR Prequalifications, Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC) issued resolutions allegedly pursuant to a sealed canvass bidding on December 16, 2002. Petitioner, as Regional Director, approved the awards and issued Notices of Award to several suppliers, namely: Rakish General Merchandise, Mitoni Business Ventures, Rich River Commercial, Lubhag Enterprises, A. Rouge Printing Corporation, and Miralles Trading. The record described multiple supply categories and monetary amounts corresponding to each supplier’s award.

Chief Inspector Rolando Biazon of the Logistics Section issued Purchase Orders after inspecting and accepting deliveries. Payment checks were signed by petitioner and Danilo dela Pena, Chief of the Finance Service Unit, and were negotiated with the Land Bank of the Philippines (Cubao Branch) on December 27, 2002, January 3, 2003, and January 6, 2003.

On January 2, 2003, complainant officers of BFP–NCR—Supt. Ariel A. Barayuga, Supt. Ramon O. Giron, and Ruben U. Pascua, Regional Supply Accountable Officer—reported an anomaly to Fire Chief Francisco Senot. They alleged that the BFP–NCR Regional Office received an Advice Sub-Allotment and a Notice of Transfer of Cash Allocation from the BFP Central Office only in the second week of December 2002, yet by December 27, 2002, the bidding was reportedly completed and suppliers had encashed checks for the purported products. They further alleged that SFO2 Cabungcal, OIC Regional Supply Accountable Officer, had authority to sign relevant documents in lieu of Pascua. They were also intrigued that the fourth quarter operational support fund was released ahead of the third quarter fund that remained unliquidated.

The complainants likewise alleged that petitioner authorized Biazon to pay in advance funds for minor maintenance of fire trucks in an amount of more or less P750,000. Fire Chief Senot promptly acted by ordering an investigation and an inventory team to inspect the BFP–NCR stockroom.

The Investigation, Stockroom Access, and Inventory Findings

Petitioner requested that the ocular inspection be held in abeyance until verification of Pascua’s motive could be determined. The investigation proceeded on January 5, 2003. However, Biazon refused to open the stockroom allegedly on petitioner’s instruction. The record stated that Biazon then attempted to open the stockroom surreptitiously when no team member was around, using keys he possessed. To preserve the stockroom contents, a monitoring team from the Central Office watched the stockroom continuously.

On January 21, 2003, DILG Undersecretary Marius Corpus directed Sr. Superintendent Romero, Chief of Internal Affairs Services, to open the stockroom notwithstanding Biazon’s refusal. The stockroom was eventually opened with Cabungcal’s help. After an inventory, the team discovered twelve computer units delivered to BFP–NCR that were reportedly inspected and accepted by Biazon on December 23, 2002, but it appeared the delivered units were withdrawn several days after delivery.

On January 22, 2003, Sr. Supt. Romero directed district, city, and municipal fire marshals under petitioner’s supervision to submit, by January 23, 2003, lists of supplies received for the fourth quarter of CY 2002 with corresponding delivery dates. Petitioner issued memoranda canceling and suspending compliance with these directives and instructed complainant Giron to refrain from issuing memoranda or radio messages without petitioner’s approval. Petitioner also filed a petition for prohibition with a prayer for a temporary restraining order to stop Sr. Supt. Romero’s further investigation.

Administrative Measures Against Petitioner and the Charge

On January 27, 2003, DILG Secretary Jose D. Lina, Jr. issued Department Order No. 2003-59, relieving petitioner as Regional Fire Marshal/Assistant Regional Director and placing him on “DS” at the BFP-National Office.

On February 12, 2003, the investigation team reported findings that: no actual bidding transpired in the procurement; petitioner merely directed PBAC members to sign resolutions and abstracts of canvass/bid; the Commission on Audit was not notified; the supplies were overpriced by more or less P1,067,025.50 to the prejudice of the government; and certain items reportedly paid and delivered were not in the stockroom. The team recommended that petitioner and other involved BFP officials be charged with grave misconduct for procurement-rule violations, deliberate disobedience to lawful orders, and suppression of evidence.

On February 14, 2003, DILG Secretary Lina issued Department Order No. 2003-146, creating a preliminary investigation committee against petitioner and other BFP–NCR employees. Petitioner denied the allegations in his counter-affidavit and elected a formal investigation. He argued that PBAC regularity should be presumed; that he had authority to approve awards as head of the BFP–NCR; that the claim of overpricing was speculative; that his approval of payments relied on certifications and supporting documents; and that he did not suppress evidence or refuse inspection.

DILG Secretary Lina later found a prima facie case. Petitioner was then formally charged with grave misconduct for alleged acts including: causing procurement in violation of procurement law and rules; making it appear that sealed bidding occurred when it did not; directing PBAC members to sign resolutions and bid abstracts in his office; failing to notify COA of supposed opening of bids; signing notices of awards; approving payments despite alleged absence of required certification and despite items not yet fully delivered; disobeying and countermanding superior orders; and suppressing evidence.

Trial/Preliminary Proceedings and Petitioner’s Failure to File an Answer

The committee required petitioner to submit an Answer within ten days from receipt of the order, but petitioner did not file an Answer. The committee scheduled preliminary hearing: the order was received by petitioner’s counsel on November 25, 2003 for a hearing on December 2, 2003, but petitioner and counsel did not appear. The hearing was reset to December 9, 2003, and the order received by counsel on December 3, 2003, yet neither petitioner nor his counsel appeared again. The committee accordingly declared petitioner to have waived his right to present evidence.

After a motion for early resolution by complainant’s counsel, DILG Secretary Lina rendered a decision on January 21, 2004, finding petitioner guilty of grave misconduct and dismissing him from the service. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

On appeal, the CSC issued Resolution No. 050947 dated July 20, 2005, which affirmed petitioner’s guilt for grave misconduct based on approving payment of supplies without a certification from the Accountant that funds were available and for disobeying and/or countermanding lawful orders of superiors. The CSC imposed dismissal with accessory penalties. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the CSC in Resolution No. 051850 dated December 13, 2005.

Proceedings Before the Court of Appeals and the Present Petition

Petitioner sought review before the Court of Appeals. On May 29, 2007, the Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner’s petition and affirmed the CSC resolutions. Its August 9, 2007 resolution denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration for lack of merit, leading to the present petition for review on certiorari.

Petitioner raised two principal issues: whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the CSC despite alleged violation of his constitutional right to due process, and whether petitioner committed grave misconduct warranting dismissal.

The Parties’ Contentions on Due Process and Evidence

Petitioner argued that the DILG Secretary’s decision was void because the DILG Secretary allegedly failed to take into consideration his counter-affidavit as an Answer. He also maintained that the DILG Secretary based the decision on documents attached to the charge without proof of identification or formal offering, rendering such attachments incompetent evidence. Petitioner further emphasized that dismissal is the severest administrative penalty and should have been immediately set aside to allow full opportunity to defend, particularly since he had rendered faithful service for decades.

The respondents and the adjudicative bodies below rejected these assertions. The Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that petitioner was not denied due process because he was given ample opportunity to be heard, including notice that failure to file an Answer would be construed as waiver. The committee accepted petitioner’s counter-affidavit into the records, though it found petitioner’s allegations inadequate to controvert the fact findings that supported the grave misconduct charge. The Court also held that petitioner’s denial, being unsubstantiated, was self-serving and carried no weight in law.

Resolution of the Due Process Issue

The Court held that petitioner could not successfully invoke denial of due process. The record showed that Secretary Lina ordered petitioner to file his Answer within ten days from receipt of the formal charge, and petitioner was informed of the option to elect a formal investigation and of the availability of counsel. Petitioner did not file the Answer. When the case was set for preliminary conferences on December 2, 2003 and December 9, 2003, neither petitioner nor counsel appeared despite proper receipt of notices.

The Court reiterated that in administrative proceedings, the filing of charges and the giving of a reasonable opportunity to answer constitute the minimum requirements of due process. The committee’s acceptance of petitioner’s counter-affidavit was noted. The Court further stressed that both Secretary Lina and the CSC considered the counter-affidavit; however, bot

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms