FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 188909, September 17, 2014
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS AND PRESIDENTIAL ANTI-GRAFT COMMISSION, Petitioners, v. FLORENDO B. ARIAS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF EQUIPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PEREZ, J.:
1. Herein respondents, together with other employees of the DPWH who are non-presidential appointees and under their control and supervision, unlawfully and knowingly perpetrated acts in violation of Section 20 of the General Appropriations Act (GAA) of FY 2000 (Republic Act No. 8760) by facilitating the alleged anomalous emergency repairs of several DPWH motor vehicles for CY 2000-2001 from the wrong fund source, an offense constituting Illegal Expenditure under Section 53, Chapter 9, Book V and Section 43, Chapter 5, Book VI, both of the Administrative Code of 1987, in relation to Section 9, Special Provision (Department of Public Works & Highways) of the same General Appropriations Act, and Section 3(e), (i) of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended and Sections 4(a), (c) and 7 (a) of Republic Act No. 6713.
2. In an Audit Report dated June 23, 2002, submitted pursuant to DPWH Department Order No. 15, series of 2002, the Internal Audit Service reported that the result of their review of almost 7,000 vouchers for the Fiscal Year 2001, 578 vehicles and equipment have undergone emergency repairs.
3. The same Audit Report narrated that as of June 7, 2002, from a review of almost 7,000 vouchers, a total of 578 vehicles and equipment were subjected to emergency repairs, with a total cost of P139,633,134.26 was paid out of the capital outlay and MOOE funds. A clear violation of Section 20 of the General Appropriations Act for FY 2000, reenacted for FY 2001, which constitute an offense under Section 43, Chapter 5, Book VI of the Administrative Code of 1987, in relation to Section 9, Special Provision (Department of Public Works and Highways) of the same General Appropriations Act and Section 3(e), (i) of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended and Section 4(a), (c) and 7(a) of Republic [A]ct No. 6713.
4. Mr. Florendo B. Arias, Assistant Bureau Director, Bureau of Equipment, then OIC of the same Bureau recommended the approval of the twenty four (24) Requisitions for Supplies and/or Equipment (RSE), not requested/certified and signed by the end-users of the vehicles. Twenty (20) of these RSEs are for a Mercedes Benz, with Plate No. NRV-687/HI-2297 and assigned to the Chief, Planning and Design Division and four (4) RSEs are for a Nissan Pick-up with Plate No. TAG-211/HI-4161 and assigned to Irene D. Ofilada, then Director of Internal Audit Service. These acts are violative of and contrary to Item No. 4, 4.1, DPWH Department Order No. 33, series of 1988 and DPWH Memorandum dated 31 July 1997, Item D, 1.2, 1.4, and 1.6 on Additional Guidelines Re: Purchase of Spare Parts and Repairs of DPWH Central Office Service Vehicles, in relation to Section 3(e), (i) of R.A. 3019, as amended and Sections 4(a), (c) and 7(a) of RA 6713.
5. Despite personal knowledge that the end-users of these vehicles (Mercedes Benz-NRV-687 and Nissan Pick-up-TAG-211) did not request/sign and/or certify the Requisition for Supplies and Equipment (RSEs), Assistant Director Florendo B. Arias, signed the Request of Obligation and Allotment (ROA) for the said vehicles and approved the Report of Waste Material purportedly for the said vehicles when there were no such waste materials because these vehicles were not subjected to actual repairs. These are in violation of Item No. 4, 4.1 of DPWH Department Order No. 33, series of 1988 and DPWH Memorandum dated 31 July 1997, Item D, 1.2, 1.4 and 1.6, on Additional Guidelines Re: Purchase of Spare Parts and Repairs of DPWH Central Office Service Vehicles, in relation to Section 3(e), (i) of R.A. 3019, as amended and Sections 4(a), (c) and 7(a) of RA 6713.
6. Assistant Director Florendo B. Arias having no authority to sign Box C, affixed his signature in box C of the twenty-four (24) Disbursement Vouchers for the said vehicles and despite personal knowledge that there were no repairs done nor replacement of defective parts for the said vehicles were made, approving the payment/reimbursement for emergency repairs/purchase of spare parts/supplies for the use of the said vehicles. This is in violation of Item No. 4, 4.1 of DPWH Department Order No. 33, series of 1988 and DPWH Memorandum dated 31 July 1997, Item D, 1.2, 1.4, 1.6, on Additional Guidelines Re: Purchase of Spare Parts and Repairs of DPWH Central Office Service Vehicles, in relation to Section 3(e), (i) of R.A. 3019, as amended and Sections 4(a), (c) and 7(a) of RA 6713.
7. Notwithstanding personal knowledge that the end-users of the above-mentioned vehicles did not request/sign and/or certify the Requisition for Supplies and Equipment (RSEs), Director Burt B. Favorito approved twenty-four (24) RSEs in violation of Item 4, 4.1 of DPWH Department Order No. 33, series of 1988 and Item D, 1.2, 1.4, 1.6, of DPWH Memorandum dated 31 July 1997 on Additional Guidelines Re: Purchase of Spare Parts and Repairs of DPWH Central Office Service Vehicles, in relation to Section 3(e), (i) of R.A. 3019, as amended and Sections 4(a), (c) and 7(a) of RA 6713.
8. Director Burt B. Favorito, despite personal knowledge of the absence of the request signed and/or certified by the end-user of Mitsubishi Pajero bearing Plate No. PLM-494/HI-3558, assigned to Assistant Regional Director, Region IV-B, DPWH, approved the ten (10) Requisition for Supplies and/or Equipment (RSE), in violation of Item No. 4, 4.1 of DPWH Department Order No. 33, series of 1988 and DPWH Memorandum Order dated 31 July 1997, Item D, 1.2, 1.4, 1.6, on Additional Guidelines Re: Purchase of Spare Parts and Repairs of DPWH Central Office Service Vehicles, in relation to Section 3(e), (i) of R.A. 3019, as amended and Sections 4(a), (c) and 7(a) of RA 6713.
9. Assistant Director Florendo B. Arias, then OIC, Bureau of Equipment, despite personal knowledge that there were no repairs done and/or replacement of spare parts made on the Mitsubishi Pajero, with Plate No. PLM-494, approved the ten (10) Reports of Waste Material in violation of Item No. 4, 4.1 of DPWH Department Order No. 33, series of 1988 and DPWH Memorandum dated 31 July 1997, Item D, 1.2, 1.4, 1.6 on Additional Guidelines Re: Purchase of Spare Parts and Repairs of DPWH Central Office Service Vehicles, in relation to Section 3(e), (i) of R.A. 3019, as amended and Sections 4(a), (c) and 7(a) of RA 6713.
10. Director Burt B. Favorito affixed his signature in box C of the ten (10) Disbursement Vouchers for the Mitsubishi Pajero with Plate No. PLM-494 and despite personal knowledge that there were no repairs done nor replacement of defective parts for the said vehicles were made, approving the payment/reimbursement for emergency repairs/purchase of spare parts/supplies for the use of the said vehicles.
11. Director Burt B. Favorito by his acts of approving the RSEs for the said three (3) motor vehicles and approving the disbursement vouchers/reimbursement for emergency repairs and/or replacement of spare parts, has directed, authorized or cooperated in the wrongdoings, instead of preventing the series of anomalous transactions. A violation of Memorandum from the President, dated November 19, 1999, Invoking the Doctrine of Command Responsibility for Corruption in Government Offices, in relation to Section 3(e), (i) of Republic Act No. 3019 as amended and Sections 4(a), (c) and 7(a) of Republic Act No. 6713.
12. Director Emily M. Tanquintic, Comptrollership and Financial Management Service (CFMS), for countersigning checks in payment for the purported repairs and/or replacement of spare parts, despite the fact that the attached supporting documents are dubiously anomalous. As Director of the CFMS, she failed to exercise prudence in the management and control of government’s financial resources, by failing to institute necessary control measures to prevent wastage and losses on the part of the government. As a supervising authority, she failed to perform the duties of her office diligently and to oversee the proper and efficient use of funds for which they were intended. She negligently carries on the business of her office, as to furnish the opportunity for default. A violation of Memorandum from the President, dated November 19, 1999, Invoking the Doctrine of Command Responsibility for Corruption in Government Offices, in relation to Section 3(e), (i) of Republic Act No. 3019 as amended and Sections 4(a), (c) and 7(a) of Republic Act No. 6713.
13. Director Oscar D. Abundo, Legal Service, being the co-signatory in the checks in payment for the purported emergency repairs or replacement of spare parts, despite the fact that the attached supporting documents are dubiously anomalous. He carelessly conducts or carries on the business of his office as to furnish the opportunity for default. Such failure resulted to irregularity or illegal acts within his area of jurisdiction. A violation of Memorandum from the President, dated November 19, 1999, Invoking the Doctrine of Command Responsibility for Corruption in Government Offices, in relation to Section 3(e), (i) of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, and Sections 4(a), (c) and 7(a) of Republic Act No. 6713.
14. Director Abraham S. Divina, Jr., Bureau of Equipment, as responsible supervising authority, failed to institute necessary management monitoring and control systems in the preparation and maintenance of equipment ledgers for each vehicle. Such ledgers could have contained individual equipment profiles which record repairs, as well as purchases of spare parts and movement of the vehicles. Such failure resulted to irregularity or illegal acts within his area of jurisdiction. A violation of Memorandum from the President, dated November 19, 1999, Invoking the Doctrine of Command Responsibility for Corruption in Government Offices, in relation to Section 3(e), (i) of Republic Act No. 3019 as amended and Sections 4(a), (c) and 7(a) of Republic Act No. 6713 and Section 46(a), (1), (3), (4) and (9) of Book V, Administrative Code of 1987.
15. DPWH authorized payment and has actually paid the total amount of P832,140.00 for the purported repairs and/or replacement of spare parts for the three (3) motor vehicles, covering thirty four (34) transactions/disbursement vouchers, as follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
a. NISSAN PICK-UP-TAG-211/HI-4161 = P98,560.00 – 4 transactions
b. MITSUBISHI PAJERO-PLM-494/HI-3558 = P249,020.00 – 10 transactions
c. MERCEDES BENZ-NRV-687/HI-2297 = P484,560.00 – 20 transactions
Total = P832,140.00
16. All respondent-presidential appointees are within the jurisdiction of the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission pursuant to Section 4 of Executive Order No. 12, dated April 16, 2001.
17. Herein respondents have openly committed serious misconduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.4chanrobleslaw
The end-user of the Mercedes Benz, Engr. Chua executed a sworn statement that “personally I have no actual knowledge on how much was the cost of the repair and whether or not parts replaced were necessary, if parts were actually installed and if actual repairs were undertaken. x x x. Atty. Ofilada, the end-user of the Nissan Pick-up, in her affidavit declared, inter alia, “that during the period covered by the Memorandum Receipt, the vehicle was never turned-over to the BOE for repairs, and for issuance of field offices. x x x. Lastly, the end-user of Mitsubishi Pajero, Assistant Regional Director Reyes, executed an affidavit that “I state that I have no personal knowledge on the said documented transactions since I have no participation whatsoever, direct or indirect, in any of the attendant processes of documentation regarding the repairs of the vehicle.” He continued, “that I learned the details of the supposed ten (10) repair transactions only upon being furnished photocopies of the accounting records and documents by the office of Atty. Sulaik and to which I state lack of knowledge thereof.” He even emphasized “that all the accounting documents and records supporting the supposed repair transactions show that my signature or initial does not appear anywhere therein.”6chanrobleslaw
Sec. 5. Substantial evidence. – In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
(1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and conjectures; (2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) When the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) When the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners’ main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.8
4. Emergency Purchase
4.1 Emergency purchase shall be allowed only where the need for the supplies, materials, furnitures, equipment, spare parts or repair of an equipment exceptionally urgent or absolutely indispensable to prevent immediate danger to, or loss of life and/or property, or avoid detriment to the public service as certified by the end-user and approved by the higher authorities.
D. FUNDING REQUIREMENTS
1. Documentation – No claim for payment for the emergency minor/major repair of service vehicles of this Department shall be processed by the Accounting Division, CFMS without strictly following provisions of COA Circular No. 92-389 dated November 3, 1992. The following documentary requirements shall be complied with prior to finding and/or processing of payment, to wit: 1.2 Certification of Emergency Purchase/Repair which shall be signed by the end-user, duly approved by the Head of Office concerned (with the rank higher than Division Chief); 1.4 The Requisition for Supplies or Equipment (RSE) which shall be signed by the end-user, recommended for approval and duly approved by the official concerned, in accordance with the existing delegation of authorities; 1.6 Certificate of Acceptance which shall be signed by the end user of said vehicle. All documents under accounting and auditing rules and regulations, shall be signed by the official and/or supplier concerned over their respective printed names.
Endnotes:
1 Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. — In addition to acts or ommissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
x x x x
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.
x x x x
(i) Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for personal gain, or having a material interest in any transaction or act requiring the approval of a board, panel or group of which he is a member, and which exercises discretion in such approval, even if he votes against the same or does not participate in the action of the board, committee, panel or group. Interest for personal gain shall be presumed against those public officers responsible for the approval of manifestly unlawful, inequitable, or irregular transaction or acts by the board, panel or group to which they belong.
2 Section 4. Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees. — (A) Every public official and employee shall observe the following as standards of personal conduct in the discharge and execution of official duties:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
(a) Commitment to public interest. — Public officials and employees shall always uphold the public interest over and above personal interest. All government resources and powers of their respective offices must be employed and used efficiently, effectively, honestly and economically, particularly to avoid wastage in public funds and revenues.
x x x x
(c) Justness and sincerity. — Public officials and employees shall remain true to the people at all times. They must act with justness and sincerity and shall not discriminate against anyone, especially the poor and the underprivileged. They shall at all times respect the rights of others, and shall refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy, public order, public safety and public interest. They shall not dispense or extend undue favors on account of their office to their relatives whether by consanguinity or affinity except with respect to appointments of such relatives to positions considered strictly confidential or as members of their personal staff whose terms are coterminous with theirs.
3 Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. — In addition to acts and omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the following shall constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public official and employee and are hereby declared to be unlawful:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
(a) Financial and material interest. — Public officials and employees shall not, directly or indirectly, have any financial or material interest in any transaction requiring the approval of their office.
4 Records, pp. 52-58.
5 Rollo, p. 94.
6 Id. at 87.
7Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas) v. Zaldarriaga, G.R. No. 175349, 22 June 2010, 621 SCRA 373, 380.
8 Isabelita vda. de Dayao v. Heirs of Gavino Robles, 612 Phil. 137, 144-145 (2009).
9 259 Phil. 794 (1989).
10 Concerned Citizen v. Gabral, Jr., 514 Phil. 209, 219 (2005); Sevilla v. Gocon, 467 Phil. 512, 521 (2004) citing Aquino v. The General Manager of the GSIS, 130 Phil. 488, 492 (1968).
11Civil Service Commission v. Rabang, 572 Phil. 316, 322-323 (2008).
12 Golangco v. Atty. Fung, 535 Phil. 331, 341 (2006).