**Facts**:
1. Aurelio Cadavedo submitted a letter-complaint on October 14, 2005, alleging anomalies in a 2004 procurement of guardrails and guardrail posts by the 1st Engineering District of the DPWH in Dipolog City.
2. The COA-IX audit team was tasked with investigating Cadavedo’s complaint, culminating in an audit investigation report (AIR) on October 5, 2006.
3. The AIR accused the engineering district of splitting procurement contracts to avoid bidding, purchasing overpriced items, and leaving materials unused, causing wastage worth PHP 40,110.
4. Miñao and others involved denied these allegations in a joint counter-affidavit, arguing procurement occurred under an old law before RA 9184 took effect.
5. On March 8, 2013, the OMB-Mindanao found Miñao and co-respondents guilty of several misconduct charges and dismissed them.
6. The motion for reconsideration filed by Miñao was denied on May 30, 2013.
7. Miñao appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the OMB-Mindanao’s ruling on August 23, 2016, and again denied Miñao’s motion for reconsideration on March 30, 2017.
8. Miñao sought a review by the Supreme Court, raising issues about contract splitting, application of RA 9184, and procedural adherence.
**Issues**:
1. Whether splitting procurement contracts violated RA 9184 and was procedurally inappropriate.
2. If the failure to conduct public bidding constituted misconduct under prevailing laws.
3. The legal interpretation of the SARO and whether Miñao’s actions were carried under a misunderstanding of lawful duty.
**Court’s Decision**:
1. **Splitting of Government Contracts**: The Court ruled that contract splitting occurred to circumvent public bidding requirements. Despite the SARO’s structure possibly suggesting smaller projects, it was determined that a single procurement was needed administratively and legally for the homogeneous materials in use. The procurement split violated RA 9184, meant to foster transparency and competitiveness in public procurement.
2. **Failure to Conduct Public Bidding**: Miñao’s reliance on simplified processes under a previously existing law was misplaced. RA 9184 was already effective, requiring comprehension and compliance with newer procurement procedures, which Miñao failed to pursue, indicating at least gross negligence rather than an innocent misunderstanding.
3. **Interpretation of the SARO**: The Court dismissed Miñao’s interpretation of the SARO (which purportedly split the project into 11 parts) as an oversight of the necessity of a global contract approach, rather than site-specific. The implementation priority was towards consolidation rather than disparate, disjointed projects.
**Doctrine**:
– RA 9184 mandates unified procurement processes to prevent arbitrary contract splits.
– Good faith defense is unacceptable when misinterpretation leads to openly violated procedure if due diligence is not observed, proving negligence.
**Class Notes**:
– **Key Legal Element**: Proper understanding and adherence to procurement laws such as RA 9184.
– **Doctrine Reinforcement**: Splitting is assessed on purpose, not form, and strictly prohibited if used to bypass public bidding.
– **Concept Understanding**: Officials must comply with current laws, presumption is on knowledge and intentional adherence.
**Historical Background**:
This case reflects ongoing challenges in the Public Works Sector during early to mid-2000s when infrastructure funding increased. The oversight sought by RA 9184 introduced reforms for transparent procurement, addressing endemic procedural abuses such as non-competitive practices occurring in government procurement prior to its enactment. The case underscored systemic issues persisting even post-enactment and the need for clear adherence to changes in law, highlighting accountability in government service as ongoing in the administration’s reform agenda at that time.
Leave a Reply