11\epuhlic of tbe llbilippines

upreme <!Court
manila

FIRST DIVISION
RUBY P. LAGOC, G.R. No. 184785
Petitioner,

-versus-

MARIA ELENA MALAGA,

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
and the OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY
OMBUDSMAN (VISAYAS),
Respondents.

x ---------------x
LIMUEL P. SALES, GR. No. 184890
Petitioner,
Present:

SERENO, C.J.,
-versus- Chairperson,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BERSAMIN,
VILLARAMA, JR., and
MENDOZA,* JJ.
MARIA ELENA
OFFICE OF THE MALAGA,
OMBUDSMAN Promulgated:

OMBUDSMAN :-: ts. ·

and the OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY
JUl 0 9 .J
x--------------------------------------------x
DECISION

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

Before the Court are the consolidated petitions for review filed by
Ruby P. Lagoc (Lagoc) and Limuel P. Sales (Sales) which seek to reverse

• Designated additional member per Special Order No. 1715 dated July 1, 2014.
Decision 10 G.R. Nos. 184785 &
184890

and set aside the Decision1 dated January 24, 2008 of the Court of Appeals
(CA) - Cebu City in CA-G.R. SP No. 00837 affirming the Decision2 dated
September 18, 2002 of respondent Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas in
OMB-VIS-ADM-2001-0408, and Resolution3 dated September 8, 2008
denying their motion for reconsideration.

The present controversy stemmed from the implementation of two

projects undertaken by the Department of Public Works and Highways
(DPWH) through the Iloilo City District Engineering Office: (1)
Construction of Skywalk/Overpass from Iloilo Supermart to Mercury
Drugstore, Valeria St., Iloilo City in the amount of P2,000,000.00; and (2)
Construction of Skywalk/Overpass from SM Shoemart to Mercury
Drugstore, Delgado St., Iloilo City in the amount of P3,500,000.00. The
funds for the said project were provided under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8760
otherwise known as the “General Appropriations Act, FY 2000,” and was
released under SARO No. BMB-A-00-0420.

On July 20, 2001, private respondent Maria Elena Malaga filed a

Complaint-Affidavit4 before the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas (OMB-
Visayas) against Wilfredo Agustino (Regional Director), Vicente M.
Tingson, Jr. (OIC District Engineer), Reynold Soldevilla (Bids and Awards
Committee [BAC] Chairman), Assistant District Engineer Sales (BAC
Chairman for materials and equipment), Rodney Gustilo (BAC Member),
Elizabeth H. Gardose (BAC Member), Project Engineer Ruby P. Lagoc
(BAC Member), Fema G. Guadalupe (Supply Officer) and Blanca O. Pagal
(Accountant III).

Malaga accused the above-named officials and employees of violating

established rules and regulations, making it appear that there was open,
public and competitive bidding for the materials and equipment needed
for the skywalk construction projects to ensure that their favored
contractor, Helen Edith Tan of IBC Int’l. Builders Corp. (IBC) got the
projects. This was evident from the following: (1) the Invitation to Bid for
the supply of materials and lease of equipment was not actually published or
advertised; (2) said invitation to bid and the three sets of bid tenders (IBC,
PKG and VN Grande) were prepared with prior knowledge that the award
will go to IBC;
(3) the unit bid prices for each and every article and the rental rate for each
and every equipment quoted by IBC were exactly the same as the unit prices
appearing in the Program of Work or Approved/Calculated Agency Estimate
(AAE), thus indicating collusion with the other two bidders whose bid offers
were all slightly higher than that of IBC; the submission of bids identical to
AAE/Program of Work manifestly indicates rigging and is a ground for the
blacklisting of contractors under the Construction Industry Authority of the
Philippines guidelines; (4) the winning bidder, IBC, is a licensed contractor
1
Rollo (G.R. No. 184785), pp. 18-29. Penned by Associate Justice Francisco P. Acosta and concurred
in by Associate Justices Pampio A. Abarintos and Amy C. Lazaro-Javier.
2
Id. at 34-47.
3 Id. at 31-33. Penned by Associate Justice Francisco P. Acosta with Associate Justices Franchito N.
Diamante and Amy C. Lazaro-Javier concurring.
4 CA rollo, pp. 31-39.
classified as Large B in Roads and Bridges, and hence it is no longer allowed
to undertake roads and bridges projects with an appropriation of P3 million
and below; if the project was implemented by straight contract, IBC would
not be pre-qualified, a fact known to Tingson and his accomplices, and the
only way for the project to be “given” to IBC was by resorting to the “by
administration” scheme; (5) the “pakyaw” laborers hired for the projects
were not independent contractors but actually just dummies for Helen
Edith Tan who actually pays for their wages; (6) Tingson and his
accomplices had agreed that no actual publication would be done to
eliminate the possibility of other contractors seeing the invitation to bid, in
collusion with the publishers who were officially paid for services not
rendered and who even received additional payments from the favored
contractor; such illegal act constitutes swindling or estafa under Article 315
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended; and (7) Tingson entered into a
fictitious contract with the publishers which was manifestly and grossly
disadvantageous to the Government, in violation of Section 3(g) of the Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

In her Counter-Affidavit,5 Lagoc stated that as a matter of practice in

their office, a project engineer automatically becomes a provisional member
of the BAC and hence she merely acted as such provisional BAC member.
She said that her main job was to prepare the program of works of the
subject projects and upon completion forward copies thereof to the Assistant
District Engineer and District Engineer for approval. After approval, she
furnishes a copy each to the Resident Auditor, Supply Officer and
Accountant. She thus claimed that “any activity relative to the bidding
process is beyond [her] job” and that she really wondered why she was
included in the complaint.

On his part, Sales together with Gardose, contended that the decision
to implement the skywalk projects by administration was made after
evaluation of the provision of the law (R.A. No. 8760) where the funds
therefor were provided, and also to generate savings with the elimination of
“contractor’s profit” in the preparation of the program of work. He likewise
averred that the invitation to bid was duly published in The Visayan Tribune
and The Visayas Examiner on March 5-11, March 12-18, 2001 and February
19 and 26, 2001, respectively, attaching photocopies of these publications to
his counter-affidavit. The fact of publication was supported by Publisher’s
Affidavit, contrary to Malaga’s insinuations. He further claimed that when
the bids were opened, IBC’s tendered offer was below the AAE; IBC passed
the post-evaluation/qualification made by the BAC; and it is not unusual that
the bid of the winning bidder may jibe with the AAE because the cost
reflected therein is based on the rental rates prescribed by the Association of
Carriers and Equipment Lessor (ACEL) in relation/compliance with
Department Order No. 58, Series of 1999 issued by the DPWH Secretary.
He stressed that Malaga filed her complaint in retaliation against Tingson
who filed a criminal complaint for falsification of public documents against
her.6

5 Id. at 41.
6
Id. at 42-44.
 During the preliminary conference held on May 9, 2002, the parties
through their respective counsel, agreed to submit the case for decision on
the basis of the evidence on record and position papers/memoranda.

In a Decision dated September 18, 2002, the public respondent Deputy

Ombudsman for Visayas Primo C. Miro found substantial evidence of
Misconduct against Tingson, Sales, Gardose and Lagoc, and accordingly
recommended that the penalty of one year suspension without pay be
imposed on them. On the other hand, the complaint against Agustino,
Soldevilla and Gustilo were recommended to be dismissed for lack of
sufficient evidence. Then Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo approved the
recommendation but modified the offense and penalty to Grave Misconduct
and dismissal from the service for Tingson, Sales, Gardose and Lagoc.

Petitioners along with Gardose appealed to the CA which affirmed the

Ombudsman’s findings of fact and conclusions. The CA held that the
Ombudsman correctly concluded that petitioners committed grave
misconduct when they conducted the bid process of and awarded the subject
contracts without compliance with the mandatory twin-publication
requirement. It likewise disagreed with petitioners’ claim that the
Ombudsman failed to consider their evidence as they could have presented
whatever evidence they had during the preliminary conference or attach it to
their memorandum.

Their motion for reconsideration having been denied by the CA,

petitioners filed their respective petitions before this Court.

As condensed from petitioners’ arguments, the main issues to be

resolved are (1) whether the Ombudsman’s finding of irregularities in the
bidding for the equipment and materials for the skywalk projects was based
on substantial evidence, and (2) whether the Ombudsman correctly
concluded that petitioners conspired to rig the bidding in favor of IBC, the
winning bidder.

We deny both petitions.

By its very nature and characteristic, a competitive public bidding

aims to protect the public interest by giving the public the best possible
advantages thru open competition. Another self-evident purpose of public
bidding is to avoid or preclude suspicion of favoritism and anomalies in the
execution of public contracts.7

Presidential Decree (PD) No. 15948 established a set of rules and

regulations to ensure competitive public bidding for construction projects.

7 Danville Maritime, Inc. v. Commission on Audit, 256 Phil. 1092, 1103 (1989).
8 “Prescribing Policies, Guidelines, Rules and Regulations for Government Infrastructure Contracts”
issued on June 11, 1978.
The Implementing Rules and Regulations9 (IRR) of said law mandates the
publication of the invitation to pre-qualify/bid, viz:
IB 3 - INVITATION TO PREQUALIFY/APPLY FOR ELIGIBILITY
AND TO BID

1. For locally funded contracts, contractors shall be invited to apply for

eligibility and to bid through:

a. …. for contracts to be bid costing P5,000,000 and below or for

contracts authorized to be bid by the regional/district offices
involving costs as may be delegated by the head of
office/agency/corporation, the invitation to bid shall be
advertised at least two (2) times within two (2) weeks in a
newspaper of general local circulation in the region
where the contract to be bid is located, which newspaper
has been regularly published for at least six (6) months
before the date of issue of the advertisement. During the
same period that the advertisement is posted in the newspaper
or for a longer period determined by the head of the
office/agency/corporation concerned, the same advertisement
shall be posted in the website of the
office/agency/corporation concerned and at the place reserved
for this purpose in the premises of the
office/agency/corporation concerned. In addition to the
foregoing, the invitation may also be advertised through other
forms of media such as radio and television, provided that
based on the agency’s short list of contractors or referral within
the Philippine contractors accreditation board, there are at least
four contractors indigenous to the region duly classified
and registered to undertake such contracts. The advertisement
may likewise be made in a newspaper of general nationwide
circulation as defined in the foregoing when there is evident
lack of interest to participate among the region-based
contractors. (Emphasis supplied.)

In this case, the Ombudsman found discrepancies in the evidence

presented by the complainant (Malaga) and petitioners to prove compliance
with the publication requirement. That petitioners submitted mere
photocopies of the issues of The Visayan Tribune and The Visayas
Examiner added credence to the Ombudsman’s conclusion that petitioners
were covering up for their omission as the invitation to bid for the
materials and equipment was actually never published. We quote the
Ombudsman’s finding on this matter:
…there is strong evidence that the requisite Invitations to Pre-
qualify and to Bid were not actually published in violation of existing
rules and regulation, specifically the Implementing Rules and Regulations
of E.O. No. 302. Contrary to herein respondents’ assertions that such
invitations were published in the March 5-11, 2001 and March 12-18,
2001 issues of The Visayan Tribune and the February 19 and 26,
2001 issues of The Visayas Examiner, the evidences on record tend to
show otherwise. Not only that copies of said newspaper issues
submitted in evidence by the complainant carried nothing about the
said Invitation (Annexes “K”, “L”, “M” & “N”, Complaint, supra),
copies of same

9 DPWH Department Order No. 152-A, Series of 2000.

 newspaper issues submitted in evidence by the respondents betrayed
efforts of manipulation to make it appear that said invitations were therein
published, when in truth and in fact there really was no publication made
(Annexes “A”, “B”, “C” & “D”, Counter-Affidavit of Limuel P. Sales,
et al., supra).

The March 5-11, 2001 issue of The Visayan Tribune submitted

in evidence by herein respondents Engineer III Limuel P. Sales and
Administrative Officer III Elizabeth H. Gardose, which is stamped
“certified xerox copy”, clearly shows that the subject Invitation to Bid was
only added and superimposed the original news item entitled “Eminem,
Robbie Williams win big British Pop Awards” (as shown by a copy of
the same newspaper issue, page 4 thereof, submitted by the
complainant), which apparently was purposely deleted. Unfortunately
for the respondents, they failed to delete the continuation of that news
item on page 5 thereof, which still carries the abbreviated sub-headline
“Eminem, Robbie Williams…” , thus exposing the manipulation. With
respect to the March 12-18, 2001 issue of The Visayan Tribune, there is
good reason to believe the complainant’s allegation, not only because she
has in her position [sic] an original copy of said newspaper issue which
did not carry the subject Invitation to Bid but also because the copy
presented by the respondents is only a “xerox” copy and, therefore,
highly susceptible to manipulation.

Copies of the February 19 and 26, 2001 issues of The

Visayas Examiner, on the other hand, which were presented in evidence
by said respondents Limuel P. Sales and Elizabeth Gardose, appear to
carry in their Special Issues the subject Invitation to Bid. This, however,
is highly suspicious because said Special Issues could be easily inserted,
with the help of the Publisher (who is in fact a co-respondent in the
criminal aspect of this case), to make it appear that the
aforementioned Invitation was published on the dates mentioned. That
a similar invitation to bid of DPWH, Capiz Engineering District was
published in the regular page, i.e. page 9, of the said newspaper issues
added more weight to the suspicion.

It is, therefore, the belief of this Office that no such publication

actually happened of the subject Invitation to Bid for the purchase of
construction materials and lease of equipment, contrary to the claims of
herein respondents.10

Sales suggests there could have been errors in the printing of the pages
in the newspapers by the publisher which were beyond the control of
petitioners and should not be blamed on petitioners. He contends that the
fact that the publishers of The Visayan Tribune and The Visayas
Examiner executed an affidavit of publication clearly established that the
invitations to bid were indeed published. And assuming arguendo that
petitioners presented mere photocopies of the said newspaper issues, he
asserts that it is no proof that they had knowledge and participation in the
manipulation of the publication of the Invitation to Bid. Sales maintains
that as BAC Chairman, his authority is limited to recommending the
Program of Work prepared by Lagoc and it was his ministerial duty to
approve the award to the winning bidder (IBC) after the Technical
Committee had submitted their

10
Rollo (G.R. No. 184785), pp. 43-44.
recommendation.11

Similarly, Lagoc assails the CA in sustaining the Ombudsman’s

finding that she conspired in rigging the bidding in favor of IBC, as she
quoted portions of the comment filed by private respondent (Malaga) herself
before this Court asserting that she (Lagoc) was not even present during the
opening of the bids and that she was not in fact in good terms with the
District Engineer but being the Project Engineer she had to sign the Abstract
of Bids as it was “SOP” in their office. To Lagoc, said admission by
complainant practically absolved her (Lagoc) from any participation in the
publication of the Invitation to Bid.

We affirm the CA in ruling that Ombudsman’s finding that there was

no compliance with the requirement of publication of the Invitation to Bid is
well supported by substantial evidence.

On the issue of non-publication of the Invitation to Bid, the CA

correctly held:
…Verily, if the copy of the March 5-11, 2001 issue of The
Visayan Tribune relied upon by the petitioners is existing and that the
Invitation to Bid advertised therein is an accommodated
advertisement/notice which allegedly cannot be found in private
respondent’s copy, what they could have done, granting that what they
say is true, was to obtain their own copy of the same issues that the
private respondent used as evidence against them and compare these
to the original copy of the subsequent issues of the March 5-11, 2001,
which they allegedly have in their possession. But they did not. Without
the original copies of the supposed subsequently-circulated copies of the
March 5-11 and March 12-18, 2001 issues of The Visayan Tribune there
is no way to determine whether the appended certified xerox copies are
indeed true and faithful reproductions of the originals allegedly in the
custody of the petitioners. So how can the Court therefore consider and
appreciate their supposed own original copies of the subsequent issues of
the March 5-11, 2001 and March 12-18, 2001, if the same are not extant in
the records?

Petitioners rely on the affidavit of the publishers of the subject

newspapers to support their claim that the Invitation to Bid was indeed
published. However, the said affidavits, particularly in the affidavit of the
managing editor of The Visayan Tribune, no statement/admission was
given about the existence of the supposed subsequently-circulated copies
of the March 5-11, 2001 issues thereof. And while it is true, that the said
affidavit, being notarized, enjoys the presumption of regularity,
nevertheless, the same can be overturned by clear and convincing
evidence, such as the original copy of the March 5-11, 2001 issue of The
Visayan Tribune submitted by the private respondents, where it is
shown that the Invitation to Bid was not at all published. In this
respect, the petitioners’ reliance on the said affidavits does not in any
way strengthen their claim of compliance with the mandatory
requirement of publication of the Invitation to Bid.

From the foregoing, it [is] clear that the factual findings of the

11
Memorandum of Petitioner Limuel P. Sales, rollo (G.R. No. 184890), pp. 190-193.
 Office of the Ombudsman are substantiated by evidence, and thus,
correctly concluded that the petitioners committed grave misconduct when
they conducted the bid process of and awarded the subject contracts
without compliance with the mandatory twin-publication requirement.
“Strict observance of the rules, regulations, and guidelines of the
bidding process is the only safeguard to a fair, honest and
competitive public bidding.”12

As to petitioners’ assertions that they neither conspired in nor had any

knowledge of the non-publication of the Invitation to Bid, we find no merit
in the same.

In Desierto v. Ocampo13 we
held:
Collusion implies a secret understanding whereby one party plays
into another’s hands for fraudulent purposes. It may take place between
and every contractor resulting in no competition, in which case, the
government may declare a failure of bidding. Collusion may also ensue
between contractors and the chairman and members of the PBAC to
simulate or rig the bidding process, thus insuring the award to a favored
bidder, to the prejudice of the government agency and public service. For
such acts of the chairman and the members of the PBAC, they may be
held administratively liable for conduct grossly prejudicial to the best
interest of the government service. Collusion by and among the
members of the PBAC and/or contractors submitting their bids may
be determined from their collective acts or omissions before, during
and after the bidding process. The complainants are burdened to prove
such collusion by clear and convincing evidence because if so proved, the
responsible officials may be dismissed from the government service or
meted severe administrative sanctions for dishonesty and conduct
prejudicial to the government service.14 (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied.)

We find in this case clear and convincing evidence that petitioners

colluded in the rigging of the bidding process to favor IBC, the winning
bidder. Petitioners signed the Abstract of Bids and approved the award to
IBC of the contract for the materials and equipment needed for the skywalk
projects despite the absence of an Invitation to Bid duly published in
accordance with the IRR of PD 1594. They cannot simply feign ignorance
of such non-compliance with a basic requirement because as Chairman
(Sales) and Member (Lagoc) of the BAC, they are responsible for the
conduct of pre-qualification, or eligibility screening, bidding, evaluation of
bids, postqualification, and recommending award of contract. As such, it is
their duty to ensure that the rules and regulations for the conduct of bidding
for government projects are faithfully observed. They may thus be held
liable for collective acts and omissions as when they affixed their signatures
in official documents as BAC Chairman/Members, and recommended
approval of the bids, in effect certifying to compliance with the aforesaid
rules.

12
Rollo (G.R. No. 184785), pp. 24-25.
13
493 Phil. 140 (2005).
14 Id. at 160.
 Petitioner Lagoc claimed that even the complainant acknowledged
that she simply signed the Abstract of Bids in her capacity as Project
Engineer and provisional member of the BAC. Such excuse is flimsy and
unacceptable. Indeed, the affixing of signatures by the committee members
are not mere ceremonial acts but proofs of authenticity and marks of
regularity.15 Moreover, there is nothing in the IRR that exempts a
provisional BAC member from liability in case of violation of its provisions.
The administrative sanctions are provided in Part V, paragraph 3 which
states:
Violation of the provisions of the IRR of PD 1594 will subject the
erring government official/employee to the sanctions provided under
existing laws particularly Republic Acts 3019 (known as the “Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act”) and 6713 (known as the “Code Of Conduct
And Ethical Standards For Public Officials And Employees”), and the
Civil Service Law, among others. x x x

We stress that the Ombudsman’s finding of collusion to rig the

bidding was based not only on the non-publication of the Invitation to Bid
but also the highly suspicious circumstance that the bid submitted by IBC
contained the unit prices of items/rental rates exactly similar to those listed
in the Program of Work. This unexplained fact, along with the deliberate
disregard of the requisite publication of the Invitation to Bid, convinced the
Ombudsman that the BAC Chairman and Members acted in conspiracy in
committing a misconduct, thus:
Adding to the questionable nature of the supposed bidding for the
purchase of materials and lease of equipment is the astonishing fact that
the price bids submitted by IBC International Builders Corp. for the
construction materials and equipment to be used in the subject two (2)
skywalk/overpass projects, as per Abstracts of Bids (Annexes “T”, “U”,
“Y” & “Z”, Complaint, supra), were exactly the same as the estimated
costs of said materials and equipment per Programs of Work
(Annexes “Q” & “V”, ibid.). This fact indubitably shows that the
biddings were rigged in order to favor one contractor – IBC International
Builders Corp.
– as in fact, the contracts for the said purchase of materials and lease of
equipment were awarded to said contractor as shown by the Purchase
Orders issued to it (Annexes “R”, “S”, “W” & “X”, ibid.).

Evidences on record substantially show that a transgression of

some established and definite rule of action in the matter of procurement
of materials and equipment for the construction of the subject two (2)
skywalk/overpass projects was committed, with the wrongful intention of
awarding the contracts to the favored private supplier/contractor by
rigging the biddings, which constitutes the administrative offense of
Misconduct. This was made possible with the following respondents
conspiring and acting together, namely: the OIC-District Engineer
VICENTE M. TINGSON, JR.; the Chairman and Members of Bids and
Awards Committee (BAC), namely: OIC Asst. District Engineer
LIMUEL
P. SALES, Engineer III RUBY P. LAGOC (Project Engineer) and
Administrative Officer III ELIZABETH H. GARDOSE (Executive
Officer for the acquisition of supplies and materials), in collaboration and

15 See Oani v. People, 494 Phil. 417, 433 (2005).

Decision 10 G.R. Nos. 184785 &
184890
cooperation with the favored private contractor and two (2) other supposed
bidders and the newspaper publishers.

The fact that the aforementioned Bids and Awards Committee

(BAC) allowed the bids of IBC International Builders Corp. and declared
it the winning bidder, and approved by said respondent OIC-District
Engineer Tingson, despite the fact that the prices of materials and rents of
equipments it quoted in its bids were obviously exact and the same as
the estimated costs of materials and rents of equipments as per Programs
of Work of the subject two skywalk/overpass projects, only shows that
they really intended to rig the biddings and favor IBC to win the contracts.
They could not have allowed it without the knowledge of, and an
agreement with, Helen Edith L. Tan, who is IBC President, because the
exactness of the IBC price quotations to the agency cost estimates are just
too much of a coincidence. We do not believe that an IBC personnel,
Juliana Praile, in-charge of preparing IBC’s bids, just accidentally came
across the project’s Program of Work or the Approved/Calculated
Estimate of the Agency and simply copied every unit price of the
materials and the rental costs of the equipment stated therein to simplify
her work. As already said, the exactness between the quotations and the
estimates are just too palpable to escape notice from the Bids and Awards
Committee, who would not have allowed it in the absence of an
agreement with respondent Tan. In fact, said respondents Ruby P. Lagoc
(Project Engineer and BAC Member), Limuel P. Sales (BAC Chairman)
and Vicente M. Tingson, Jr. (OIC-District Engineer) were the ones who
prepared, recommended for approval and approved, respectively, the
subject projects’ Programs of Work and Agency Estimates (Annexes
“Q” & “V”, Complaint, supra).

The two (2) other “losing” bidders, namely: VN Grande Co. and
PKG Commercial, were willing participants in the fixed biddings for
purposes of compliance with the required number of at least three (3)
bidders to evade a failed bidding. Their cooperation is revealed by the fact
that they were able to submit their supposed bids even in the absence of
publication of the Invitation to Bid. Furthermore, the fact that they did not
contest the bids of IBC in spite of the clearly questionable price and rent
quotations it submitted only shows that the whole thing was pre-arranged.

Notwithstanding the contracts of publication entered into (Annexes

“I” & “J”, Complaint, supra), the publishers of The Visayan Tribune
and The Visayas Examiner did not publish the aforementioned
Invitation to Bid. The only apparent reason for the non-publication
was to prevent other legitimate and qualified contractors from
participating in the biddings, and thus ensuring that the contracts for the
supply of materials and lease of equipment to be used in the subject
two skywalk/overpass projects would go to IBC International Builders
Corp., the favored contractor. Their participation in this conspiracy of
rigging the biddings has been clearly exposed by an apparent cover-up
discussed above. As mentioned above, copies submitted in evidence by
herein respondents of the newspaper issues purportedly carrying the
Invitation to Bid show strong and clear signs of manipulation, which
would only point to a cover- up for an intentional omission.

While the questioned transactions involved two (2) different

projects, there was present only a singular wrongful intent to award the
contracts for the said purchase of materials and lease of equipment to be
used therefor to one favored contractor, IBC Int’l. Builders Corp. This
singularity of intent can be deduced from the fact that the
Decision 1 G.R. Nos. 184785 & 184890

biddings/opening of bids for said purchase and lease were held on the
same date (March 23, 2001), and all the Purchase Orders issued to IBC
Int'l. Builders Corp. in connection thereto bear the same date (March 26,
2001). Hence, the respondents concerned may be held liable for only one
16
administrative infraction.

Findings of fact of the Office of the Ombudsman are conclusive when

supported by substantial evidence and are accorded due respect and weight
especially when they are affirmed by the CA. It is only when there is grave
abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman that a review of factual findings may
17
aptly be made. And as long as there is substantial evidence in support of
8
the Ombudsman's decision, that decision will not be overtumed! No such
grave abuse of discretion is shown in this case.

Misconduct is defined as "a transgression of some established and

definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross
19
negligence by a public officer." Misconduct becomes grave if it "involves
any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law
or to disregard established rules, which must be established by substantial
20
evidence."

Section 52 (A) (3), Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on

Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides that the penalty for grave
misconduct is dismissal from the service, which was correctly imposed by
the Ombudsman on petitioners, along with OIC District Engineer Tingson,
Jr. and the other BAC Member Elizabeth H. Gardose.

WHEREFORE, the consolidated petitions are DENIED for lack of

merit. The Decision dated January 24, 2008 and Resolution dated
September 8, 2008 of the Court of Appeals - Cebu City in CA-GR. SP No.
00837 AFFIRMING the Decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in
OMB-VIS-ADM-200 1-0408 finding the petitioners GUILTY of Grave
Misconduct and imposing upon them the severe penalty of DISMISSAL
from office are UPHELD.

With costs against the petitioners.

SO
ORDERED.

16 Rollo, pp. 44-46.

17 Gaas v. Mitmug, 576 Phil. 323, 331 (2008), citing Bedruz v. Office of the Ombudsman, 519 Phil. 426,
432 (2006).
18 Tolentino v. Loyola, G.R. No. 153809, July 27, 2011, 654 SCRA 420, 436, citing Francisco, Jr. "
Desierto, G.R. No. 154117, October 2, 2009, 602 SCRA 50, 125, further citing Morong Water District
v. Office of the Deputy Ombudsman, 385 Phil. 45, 58 (2000).
19 Civil Service Commission v. Ledesma, 508 Phil. 569, 579 (2005)), citing Bureau of Internal Revenue v.
Organo 468 PhiL Ill, 118 (2004) and Castelo v. Florendo, 459 Phil. 581, 597-598 (2003).
20 ld.
WE CONCUR:

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Chief Justice
Chairperson

k h&d;
TERESITAJ. LEONARDO-DE CAS1RO
Associate Justice

JOSE CA ENDOZA
As ;;i ttice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, I certifY

that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's
Division.

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Chief Justice