Photo from Pexels | Tima Miroshnichenko
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
Navales vs. People of the Philippines; Guillen vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 219598 & 220108, August 7, 2024
The Supreme Court ruled that a violation of Procurement Laws by public officers will not automatically result in a conviction under Republic Act No. 3019, also known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
It is required that all elements of graft be proven beyond reasonable doubt, not just the deficiencies in the procurement process.
Petitioners were officials of the Davao City Water District (DCWD), with several of them members of the Pre-Bidding and Awards Committee-B (PBAC-B).
The DCWD Board of Directors approved DCWD General Manager Wilfredo A. Carbonquillo’s (Carbonquillo) recommendation to directly negotiate with Hydrock Wells, Inc. (Hydrock) for the drilling phase of DCWD’s water supply project.
In a resolution, PBAC-B waived the advertisement requirement for bidding and instead invited accredited well drillers to participate in the project. Only three responded, including Hydrock.
PBAC-B recommended that the Board award Hydrock the project through a negotiated contract, which was subsequently approved.
Administrative and criminal complaints were filed against the petitioners for bypassing the competitive public bidding mandated by Presidential Decree No. 1594, which outlines regulations for government infrastructure contracts.
Regarding the administrative complaints, the Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners cannot be held liable for grave misconduct unless there is proof of bad faith. Instead, the Court found them guilty of simple neglect of duty or simple misconduct for not properly following procurement procedures.
In relation to the criminal complaint, the Sandiganbayan found the petitioners guilty of graft, leading to their current petition before the Supreme Court.
Issue: Whether or not the violation of the procurement laws by public officials will automatically result in a conviction under R.A. No. 3019.
The Supreme Court’s Decision:
The Court acquitted the petitioners, stating that failure to follow procurement laws is not enough to prove graft unless there is evidence of malicious intent.
To convict someone under Section 3(e) of RA 3019, the person must be a public officer doing their job. The officer must have acted in bad faith, shown clear favoritism, or been grossly negligent. Their actions must have caused harm to someone or given unfair advantages or benefits to another person.
To fall under Section 3(e) of RA 3019, a procurement violation must be done in bad faith, with manifest partiality or inexcusable negligence harming a party, including the government, or giving another undue preference, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits.
The Court found that petitioners, as members of the PBAC-B merely recommended to the DCWD Board the award of contract. It was the DCWD Board which had the authority to approve and award the contract to Hydrock.
While there might have been irregularities in the procurement process that violated procurement laws, there was no evidence showing petitioners were motivated by manifest partiality or bad faith.
Instead, petitioners resorted to a negotiated contract believing it is allowed as an exceptional case given the urgency of the procurement and the lack of qualified bidders.
The Court also found that petitioners did not intentionally give Hydrock undue advantage as it was Carbonquillo who recommended giving the award to Hydrock, which petitioners disregarded and instead invited other accredited well drillers. However, it was Hydrock which submitted the lowest price quotations.
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 0917-5772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.
