Cited Laws
Accordingly, on September 14, 1983, appellant Pedrigal, Chairman of the Procurement Section of the Finance Division, caused the preparation of three Requisitions for Supplies and Equipment (RSE) forms, which enumerated the repairs or job orders that needed to be made on the surveying instruments. The RSEs were later recommended for approval by Finance Officer Modesto. [3] Invitations to Bid were sent out on October 26, 1983 and, eventually, the contract to repair the instruments was awarded to Engineering & Surveying Instruments Center (ESIC), represented by Castañeda. On December 14, 1983, three Purchase Orders (PO), addressed to ESIC, were recommended for approval in the amount of P83,850. Castañeda received the POs, together with the 19 surveying instruments, on December 19, 1983. [4] On January 3, 1984, petitioner Galapon inspected the 19 surveying instruments after they were returned, and presumably repaired, by ESIC. The results of the inspection are contained in three Reports on Inspections prepared by petitioner Galapon wherein he declared that the surveying instruments were functional and operational. The Reports on Inspection were concurred in by petitioners Burgos, Monge and Sabando, who were all members of the Inspectorate Committee. [5] Thereafter, Disbursement Vouchers were prepared and signed by, among others: Galapon, who directed the preparation of thereof; Pedrigal, who declared receiving the surveying instruments in good condition; and Modesto, who certified that the expenses incurred were necessary and lawful. [6] The surveying instruments were, thereafter, stored in a warehouse of Region VIII, MPWH until they were post-inspected by Robert A. Bajar, Technical Inspector for the Commission on Audit. According to his Post Inspection Report dated January 20, 1984, Bajar found numerous defects and deficiencies on the surveying instruments. Reacting to the Post Inspection Report, the Regional Director of MPWH sent a wire to Castañeda requesting him to correct these defects. Initially, Castañeda did not respond to the wire so the Regional Director ordered one of his subordinates, Loyola, personally to bring the instruments to ESIC in Cebu City and to see to it that they were properly repaired. Before Loyola could leave for Cebu City, a brother of Castañeda arrived to pick up the instruments. The two of them then brought the instruments to ESIC. [7] On October 5 and 8, 1984, after Castañeda returned the surveying instruments, Bajar inspected them for a second time and again found their conditions unacceptable. His findings are contained in his Post Inspection Report dated October 15, 1984. This prompted the Regional Director again to request Castañeda to correct the deficiencies. Castañeda accordingly complied and went to Leyte to make repairs thereon. [8] On October 30, 1985, Bajar conducted a third post inspection and numerous deficiencies and defects were still found on the surveying instruments. Due to Bajar's recommendation that
PSUPT. JOB F. MARASIGAN, VS. OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE MILITARY AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICES AND HON. CONCHITA CARPIO-MORALES, IN HER CAPACITY AS OMBUDSMAN, AND HON. MEL SENEN S. SARMIENTO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
G.R. No. 230865 -
CaseG.R. Nos. 237432-33 - JESUS LORETIZO NIEVES, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. Nos. 237432-33 -
CaseG.R. No. 213500 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND THE FACT-FINDING INVESTIGATION BUREAU (FFIB), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE MILITARY AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICES (MOLEO), VS. PS/SUPT. RAINIER A. ESPINA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. No. 213500 -