G.R. No. 221134 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN-MINDANAO, VS. RICHARD T. MARTEL AND ABEL A. GUIÑARES.

Ruling

Accordingly, the said vehicles were purchased and delivered to the provincial government. The disbursement vouchers for the five (5) vehicles were signed by Martel and Guiñares as Provincial Accountant and Provincial Treasurer, respectively. [3] Subsequently, a concerned citizen wrote to the Ombudsman, reporting the lack of public bidding of the said procurement. Acting thereon, the Ombudsman launched an investigation concerning the acquisition of the said vehicles. The Ombudsman's Ruling In its Decision, dated June 14, 2012, the Ombudsman found Martel, Guiñares, Putong, and Mier guilty of grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty. The Ombudsman opined that these PBAC officers improperly resorted to direct purchase, completely disregarding the required public bidding. Gan, however, was relieved of his administrative liability due to his re-election as provincial board member. The decretal portion reads: WITH THE FOREGOING PREMISES, this Office finds substantial evidence to sanction respondents Richard Tan Martel, Allan Cudera Putong, Victoria Givero Mier and Abel Arquillano Guiñares for Grave Misconduct and Gross Neglect of Duty. Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 17, this Office hereby orders said respondents DISMISSED from service together with all its accessory penalties. The incumbent Honorable Governor of the Province of Davao del Sur is hereby directed to implement this Office's Decision and to submit a compliance report within ten (10) days from the implementation thereof. As for respondent Edgar Cajilig Gan, the case is hereby rendered DISMISSED pursuant to the Doctrine of Condonation as declared in the case of Aguinaldo vs. Santos 212 SCRA 768. [4] Martel, Guiñares, Mier, and Putong moved for reconsideration, arguing that they had no intent to commit any irregularity as they only approved the recommendation of the PGSO to directly purchase the vehicles. On the other hand, Putong asserted that he merely adopted the previous practice in his office where the vehicles would be purchased from the car dealers because no one participates in a public bidding of vehicles. He also added that he was removed as PGSO in 2004 and was not a party to the whole process of the procurement of the vehicles. In its Order, [5] dated February 28, 2013, the Ombudsman partially granted the motion for reconsideration of Putong. Because Putong had been relieved from his position as PGSO in 2004 pursuant to Memorandum Order No. 221-2004, he had limited participation in the anomalous procurement of the vehicles. Thus, the Ombudsman lowered his penalty of dismissal to one (1) year suspension without pay. It, however, sustained the penalty of dismissal against Martel, Guiñares and Mier due to their full participation in the purchase and acquisition of the service vehicles. The fallo reads: WITH THE FOREGOING PREMISES the subject Motions of RICHARD TAN MARTEL and ABEL ARQUILLANO GUIÑARES are hereby DENIED. The Decision 25 February 2011 stands in so far as respondent