THE Supreme Court docket has affirmed the dismissal of a district engineer of the Division of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) in Zamboanga del Norte from authorities service stemming from the alleged anomalous buy of guardrails and guardrail posts price P5.5 million in 2004.
In a 20-page resolution penned by Affiliate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando, the excessive court docket’s Second Division denied the petition filed by Arturo Miñao.
“Accordingly, the Aug. 23, 2016 resolution and March 30, 2017 decision of the Court docket of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 05743-MIN are hereby affirmed,” the court docket stated.
The case stemmed from a letter-complaint dated Oct. 14, 2005 from Aurelio Cadavedo pertaining to the alleged anomalous buy of guardrails and guardrail posts price P5.5 million someday in 2004 made by the First Engineering District of the DPWH in Sta. Isabel, Dipolog Metropolis.
The Workplace of the Ombudsman (OMB)-Mindanao noticed, amongst others, that whereas the precise form of venture was not indicated within the particular allotment launch order (SARO), the 11 abstracts of bids, 11 value estimates and 11 buy orders indicated that there was just one form of venture for the nationwide roads.
It was additionally found that Miñao didn’t conduct public bidding as required by regulation, and based on the Fee on Audit, procured substandard and overpriced supplies from AUF Enterprises.
Miñao, who was OIC district engineer, along with Manolito Abapo and Clemente Tabiliran, have been discovered administratively accountable for grave misconduct, gross neglect of responsibility, critical dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the most effective curiosity of service and have been slapped with the penalty of dismissal from authorities service. Their movement for reconsideration was denied.
The Court docket of Appeals (CA) closely relied on the findings of the OMB-Mindanao in its March 8, 2013 resolution and Could 30, 2013 order, prompting Miñao to raise the case earlier than the Supreme Court docket.
Nevertheless, the excessive tribunal agreed with the findings of the Ombudsman.
“It was extremely inaccurate for the petitioner to conclude that the implementation of the SARO necessitated the execution of 11 authorities contracts,” the court docket stated.
“Notably, the alleged acts of petitioner — splitting of presidency contracts and failure to conduct public bidding as required by regulation — have been dedicated pursuant to the SARO for the nationwide roads, which was issued by the DBM on Dec. 16, 2003. Furthermore, procurements by the petitioner’s workplace for the rehabilitation and enchancment of the nationwide roads have been initiated on July 12, 2004. As such, RA 9184, the governing regulation at the moment, is controlling.”
The court docket disagreed with Miñao’s claims that the dismissal of the felony side of the case by the Regional Trial Court docket (RTC) in its Jan. 11, 2015 joint decision ought to absolve him from any administrative legal responsibility.
The court docket famous that “the dismissal of Prison Case Nos. 18879 and 18880 of the RTC doesn’t have any bearing on the executive case towards petitioner as completely different levels of proof are required in these actions.”