Title
Roy III vs. Ombudsman
Case
G.R. No. 225718
Decision Date
Mar 4, 2020
PLM officials faced Ombudsman charges for alleged procurement irregularities in purchasing a vehicle. The Supreme Court dismissed the case, ruling no evidence of bad faith, undue injury, or unwarranted benefit, clearing Roy of graft charges.

Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-04-1840)

Factual Background

In January 2006, Dean Domingo B. Nunez requested the purchase of a vehicle with specific technical requirements. This request received approval from President Benjamin G. Tayabas of PLM on January 19, 2006. Subsequently, it was determined that the Hyundai Starex van met these specifications. The procurement process initiated involved the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC), which included various PLM officials, and concluded with the recommendation for direct procurement, as public bidding was deemed not applicable.

Purchase Process

Jose M. Roy III was appointed Acting President of PLM on February 24, 2006, while the BAC evaluated submitted quotations on May 10, 2006. Following their recommendation, Roy signed the necessary documents culminating in the purchase order for the Hyundai Starex, finalized on June 6, 2006. However, the Commission on Audit (COA) later flagged this procurement, stating that it bypassed required approvals and did not adhere to public bidding regulations as stipulated by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9184.

Ombudsman Complaint and Allegations

In August 2013, the FIO lodged a complaint against Roy and several PLM officials, asserting violations of anti-corruption laws, including grave misconduct and gross neglect. The FIO alleged that the procurement should have undergone public bidding due to the absence of appropriate authorizations and the fact that Hyundai Otis was not the exclusive dealer for the vehicle.

Ombudsman Resolution

On November 9, 2015, the Ombudsman found probable cause to indict Roy and others for violations of R.A. No. 3019. This resolution indicated the intent to file charges based on perceived wrongdoing in the procurement process. Subsequently, Roy sought a reconsideration of the Ombudsman's decision, presenting as new evidence a Notice of Settlement issued by the COA, which settled the previous suspension of the vehicle's procurement.

Court's Evaluation of the Allegations

The primary issue for determination was whether the Ombudsman had committed grave abuse of discretion in its finding of probable cause to indict Roy. The Supreme Court noted that the elements required under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 were not substantiated. These elements require proof of a public officer acting with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.

Lack of Evidence for Criminal Charges

The Court concurred with Roy’s petition, noting that while he held a position of authority, he did not actively engage in malfeasance during the procurement process. The evidence did not establish that he acted negligently, nor did it demonstrate intent to provide undue advantage to any

...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.