G.R. No. 237837 - EMMANUEL CEDRO ANDAYA, ATTY. SYLVIA CRISOSTOMO BANDA, JOSEFINA SAN PEDRO SAMSON, ENGR. ANTONIO VILLAROMAN SILLONA, BERNADETTE TECSON LAGUMEN, AND MARIA GRACIA DE LEON ENRIQUEZ, VS. FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, dismissed them from service. In ruling that petitioners were guilty of Grave Misconduct, the Ombudsman found that they violated the rules of procurement under RA 9184 when they resorted to negotiated procurement instead of conducting a public bidding, taking into account that the cost of the contract was P665,000.00, which is beyond the threshold for alternative modes of procurement. Likewise, the project was hastily awarded to EPI, a contractor engaged in printing, not in elevator repair and services. [13] Moreover, it observed that the public was not duly notified of the award to EPI for failure to comply with the required publication of the procurement in the Philippine Government Electronic Procurement System. [14] Further, petitioners failed to substantiate that immediate and compelling justification exists in this case to dispense with public bidding. [15] Contrary to petitioners' explanation that immediate action was necessary to restore vital public services of the NPO, records show that they resorted to negotiated procurement "in order not to hamper [the NPO's] day to day transactions since the elevator has been in operational since July 2010 and in order not to lose the budget." [16] Likewise, the repair was undertaken only for the convenience of the NPO employees in carrying documents in the NPO building; therefore, the emergency procurement was not necessary to address an unforeseen-emergency or to restore vital services. [17] Finally, the Ombudsman added that petitioners' negligence denied the government of a fair system of determining the best possible price for its procurement. [18] Petitioners moved for reconsideration, which was denied in an Order [19] dated October 10, 2016. Aggrieved, petitioners appealed to the CA via petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. The CA Ruling In a Decision [20] dated August 31, 2017, the CA affirmed the Ombudsman's Decision, finding that petitioners failed to justify their resort to negotiated procurement considering that: (a) the elevator became non­functional in July 2010 but the purchase request was made only in September 2010, thereby disproving the alleged immediacy of its repair; (b) the elevator, which was merely used for carrying loads of paper and other printed materials, is not indispensable to the NPO's mandate to provide printing services for the government; and (c) the reversion of the budget allocation for the repair of the elevator to the general fund is too flimsy a reason to dispense with the required public bidding. [21] Stressing that alternative modes of procurement can be resorted to only in highly exceptional cases, the CA opined that petitioners' justifications failed to satisfy any of the extraordinary circumstances under RA 9184 permitting resort to negotiated procurement. As such, it affirmed the penalty of dismissal from the service meted by the Ombudsman. [22] Petitioners' motion for reconsideration [23] was denied in a Resolution [24] dated