Case Summary (G.R. No. 222998)
Factual Background
On February 3, 2004, the Department of Budget and Management issued a Special Allotment Release Order amounting to P728 million, allocating P291.2 million for the Department of Agriculture's Farm Inputs and Implements Program. The City of Iriga received a sub-allotment of P3 million. On April 26, 2004, the Pre-qualification Bids and Awards Committee of Iriga City, chaired by Turiano, held a meeting to procure fertilizers urgently needed by local farmers. The Committee decided, based on a supposedly submitted Certificate of Emergency Purchase, to procure fertilizers from Madarca Trading through negotiated sale.
Ombudsman Complaint
On April 19, 2011, Task Force Abono filed a complaint against Turiano and other officials, alleging multiple administrative and criminal offenses related to the procurement, including violations of the Anti-Graft Law and procurement regulations. The complaint detailed various irregularities, including the lack of public bidding, favoritism, and discrepancies in procurement documents.
Ruling of the Ombudsman
The Ombudsman found Turiano and others administratively liable for dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, imposing dismissal from service with corresponding penalties. The Ombudsman determined Turiano’s direct involvement and knowledge of the anomalies based on his signature in several procurement documents. Turiano's motions for reconsideration were denied.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The Court of Appeals affirmed the Ombudsman's decision, ruling that Turiano was afforded due process and that there was substantial evidence supporting the findings of conspiracy among the officials involved. The CA rejected Turiano's contentions regarding due process violations and argued that his participation in the procurement process and signature on related documents established his culpability.
Subsequent Arguments
On appeal, Turiano maintained that his due process rights were violated and argued that the Ombudsman had pre-judged him. He pointed to the absence of other signatories in the charges against him as evidence that no conspiracy existed and asserted that his reliance on subordinates should exonerate him. The Office of the Solicitor General countered that Turiano’s claims raised factual questions unsuitable for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Issues for Resolution
The Supreme Court addressed whether the appeal raised legal questions, whether Turiano was denied due process, whether substantial evidence supported the conspiracy findings, and whether Turiano exercised due diligence in performing his duties.
Supreme Court Ruling
The Supreme Court denied Turiano's petition,
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 222998)
Overview of the Case
- The case revolves around Atty. Aldo P. Turiano's petition for review on certiorari against the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed his administrative liability for serious misconduct and dishonesty in connection to the procurement of fertilizers by the City of Iriga, Camarines Sur.
- The Ombudsman previously found Turiano administratively liable for dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, resulting in a penalty of dismissal from service.
Background Facts
- On February 3, 2004, a Special Allotment Release Order was issued for P728,000,000 for the Farm Inputs and Farm Implements Program (FIFIP) by the Department of Budget and Management.
- Iriga City received a sub-allotment of P3,000,000 for the program, leading to a PBAC meeting chaired by Turiano on April 26, 2004 to expedite fertilizer purchases.
- The PBAC approved the purchase based on an emergency purchase certificate, with the city acquiring 789 liters of "Young Magic Foliar Fertilizer" from Madarca Trading at an inflated price.
- Payments totaling P2,895,678.50 were made to Madarca in two installments in 2004 and 2005.
Ombudsman Proceedings
- On April 19, 2011, Task Force Abono filed a complaint against Turiano and other officials for various offenses, including violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and the Government Procurement Reform Act.
- The Ombudsman found substantial evidence of irregularities, such as failure to conduct proper bidding, specification of a brand in the purchase request, an