Title
Supreme Court
Sabaldan, Jr. vs. Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao
Case
G.R. No. 238014
Decision Date
Jun 15, 2020
A Bislig City official faced graft charges for approving a higher-priced excavator bid, but the Supreme Court dismissed the case, ruling no evidence of bad faith or negligence.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 238014)

Applicable Law

The case centers on the alleged violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The legal context is further framed by the provisions of the 1987 Philippine Constitution and the Ombudsman Act of 1989, which grants the Office of the Ombudsman the authority to investigate and prosecute acts of public officials that appear illegal, unjust, or improper.

Factual Background

The origins of the case stem from a Complaint-Affidavit filed by Lozada on November 9, 2015, against Mayor Navarro, accusing him of various malpractices, including improper procurement and corruption related to the acquisition of a hydraulic excavator. The complainant contended that the procurement process favored a specific supplier, RDAK Transport Equipment, Inc., resulting in undue injury to the government as the bid price was substantially higher compared to another supplier's offer.

Procedural History

The Ombudsman, after reviewing the case, found probable cause against the petitioner among others for violations of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. The Ombudsman ruled that the bid of RDAK was non-compliant with pertinent procurement regulations but nonetheless approved. The petitioner and his co-respondents moved for partial reconsideration of this finding, which was denied, prompting the current petition for certiorari.

Legal Standards on Ombudsman’s Powers

Under Sections 12 and 13 of Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, the Ombudsman has the authority to investigate any complaints against public officials, providing such investigations are based on reasonable grounds. The Ombudsman holds considerable discretion regarding the determination of probable cause, and the courts typically refrain from intervening unless grave abuse of discretion is demonstrated.

Elements of Violation

To establish a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, four elements must be proven: (1) the offender is a public officer, (2) the act occurred in the discharge of official duties, (3) the act was executed with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross negligence, and (4) it resulted in undue injury to the government or unwarranted benefits to a private party.

Court’s Ruling on Probable Cause

The Court held that the Ombudsman’s determination of probable cause lacked sufficient evidence. The Ombudsman did not convincingly demonstrate that the petitioner acted w

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.