G.R. No. 231345 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, VS. MELCHOR J. CHIPOCO AND CHRISTY C. BUGANUTAN.[G.R. No. 232406] ROBERTO R. GALON, VS. MELCHOR J. CHIPOCO AND CHRISTY C. BUGANUTAN.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, they should be held liable for Neglect of Duty. [14] Meanwhile, the Ombudsman issued a Resolution [15] in OMB-M-C-11-0356-I, finding the existence of probable cause to charge Ayunting, Balais and Go for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. A corresponding Information [16] was later filed before the Sandiganbayan against Ayunting, Balais and Go. Motions for Reconsideration in OMB-M-A-11-390-I The Ombudsman's Decision in OMB-M-A-11-390-I was challenged by Galon and the respondents via separate motions for reconsideration. In his motion, [17] Galon sought the imposition of stiffer penalties against respondents and a reversal of the absolutions handed down by the decision. In their motion for reconsideration, [18] on the other hand, the respondents pleaded for their exculpation. They denied that they had been lax in observing procurement and disbursement requirements, insisting that they only signed the disbursement voucher for the purchase of the Nissan Patrol vehicle after a competitive bidding had taken place and after all the necessary documents had been presented to them. To bolster their position, the respondents annexed to their motion for reconsideration the following documents which tend to prove the conduct of a competitive bidding prior to the municipality's purchase of the Nissan Patrol vehicle: [19] Certification as to the Posting of Notice/Invitation to Bid in Conspicuous Places, issued by Chipoco in his capacity as BAC chairman; [20] Price Quotations of the Participating Bidders, namely: a. EVS Display Center; [21] b. Catmon Car Sales; [22] and c. Oro Cars Display Center; [23] Department of Trade and Industry Certificates and Business Permits of the Participating Bidders; [24] Abstract of Bids dated January 19, 2011; [25] Minutes of the Meeting of the BAC held on January 19, 2011; [26] Notice of Award dated January 20, 2011 in favor of the winning bidder, Oro Cars Display Center; [27] Purchase Order dated January 20, 2011 in favor of Oro Cars Display Center; [28] Acceptance and Inspection Report dated January 20, 2011; [29] Obligation Request dated January 21, 2011; [30] and Disbursement Voucher No. 100-11-01-212 in favor of Oro Cars Display Center. [31] Galon 's Second Complaint-Affidavit Yet, on February 9, 2016, Galon filed with the Ombudsman a second complaint-affidavit [32] concerning the same transaction as in his original complaint-affidavit. The second complaint-affidavit also implicated the same persons named in the original, adding only a number of individuals as new defendants. Galon justified the filing of a second complaint-affidavit on what he claims as " newly-discovered evidence " in the form of several documents that had been attached by Ayunting in his (Ayunting's) application to become a state witness in the criminal case pending before the Sandiganbayan. [33] To avoid conflict with his pending motion for reconsideration in OMB-M-A-11-390-I , Galon prayed that the same be consolidated with the adm