IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE FOR SIX (6) MONTHS WITHOUT PAY ON GOVERNOR DOMINADOR T. BELAC OF THE PROVINCE OF KALINGA

This refers to the verified administrative complaint of Richard
Abadilla and seven other members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of
Kalinga against Governor Dominador T. Belac of the same province, for
alleged acts of misconduct in office, dishonesty and abuse of authority,
arising from the purchase of his service vehicle, a Nissan Safari.

Complaints alleged that the irregular purchase of respondent’s
service vehicle was consummated with the use of a falsified document and
was made in violation of prescribed rules regarding the purchase of
government vehicle. They likewise averred that the purchase was done in
cahoots with other government officials of the province.

In answer, respondent contends, inter alia, that the purchase
of the service vehicle for the use of the Office of the Governor was
based on necessity, made in good faith and in consonance with law; that
the purchase was legal in all aspects and with the knowledge and consent
of the Committee on Finance and Appropriation; that the authority to
secure a loan for the purpose was unanimously approved by the said
committee; that complainants disapproved the authority to secure a loan
for reasons known only to them and that complainants are in bad faith,
having induced the Local Finance Committee to make the necessary payment
only to repudiate the authority later.

As Investigating Authority, the Department of the Interior and Local
Government (DILG) conducted several hearings, after which it submitted
its report.

As gathered from both the testimonial and documentary evidence
submitted by the parties, it was established that on July 6, 1998,
respondent, in his personal capacity, bought a 1998 model Nissan Patrol
Safari complete with accessories for P1,585,000.00 from the Royce Motor
Center, Inc. and paid a down payment of P600,000.00 (Exhibit “QQ” –
Sales Invoice No. 5357 dated July 6, 1998), with the balance payable in
six months at P165,000.00 per month; that when the first monthly
installment became due and demandable, respondent defaulted (page 19 TSN
of July 21, 1999) and on August 17, 1998 respondent requested the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan for the realignment of the amount of
P200,000.00 from the Roads and Bridges Fund to Capital Outlay to pay the
monthly amortization of the vehicle (Exhibit “K”) which request was
denied; that upon denial of the request for realignment, respondent, on
August 26, 1998, wrote Vice-Governor Jocel C. Baac requesting from the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan authority to secure a loan from the Development
Bank of the Philippines (DBP) for the purchase of one service vehicle
(Exhibit “3” and “3-A”); that the request was referred to the Committee
on Finance and Appropriation on September 4, 1998, which committee,
after consultation and deliberation with the Provincial Budget Officer,
Provincial Treasurer and Provincial Accountant, recommended that (1) a
resolution be adopted authorizing the Provincial Treasurer to open a
depository account with DBP Tabuk branch in the amount of P2.5 million;
2) a resolution be adopted authorizing the Provincial Governor to secure
a loan to pay for the service vehicle in the amount of P1.5 million,
and 3) the re-alignment of the amount of P200,000.00 from any source to
augment the additional cost of insurance, and other expenses to complete
the purchase (Exhibit “F”); that the Advice of Allotment was prepared
on September 3, 1998 (Exhibits “H” and “9”); that on September 4, 1998,
the Request for Obligation and Allotment (ROA) [Exhibits “W” and “151”],
Purchase Request [Exhibits “BB” and “11”), Purchase Order (Exhibits “Z”
and “12”), Disbursement Voucher (Exhibit “X”), Delivery and Inspection
Report (Exhibit “AA”), Land Bank Check No. 0000126591 (Exhibit “E”) and
Royce Motor Official Receipt (Exhibit “TT”) were all prepared; and that
when the Sangguniang Panlalawigan came to know that the purchase of the
vehicle was already consummated, it denied further action on the request
of the respondent for authority to secure a loan and later conducted an
inquiry on the matter.

The main issue to be resolved in this case is whether or not
respondent, in consummating the purchase of the questioned motor
vehicle, acted with the intention of concealing or distorting the truth
that indeed there was no appropriation ordinance for the purchase of the
vehicle.

My findings are in the affirmative.

It must be emphasized that the procurement of equipment by government
agencies including local government units is governed by pertinent laws
and prescribed rules and regulations. Assuming that funds are
available, the basic steps or procedures for the procurement of
equipment are as follows: 1) Preparation of Purchase Request. The
head of office needing the equipment shall certify as to their
necessity for official use and specify the project or activity where the
equipment are to be used (Sec. 359, Local Government Code). Every
purchase request must be accompanied by a certificate signed by the
local Budget Officer, the local Accountant and the local Treasurer
showing that an appropriation therefor exists, that the estimated amount
of such expenditures has been obligated, and that the funds are
available for the purpose, respectively (Sec. 360, ibid); 2) Approval of the Purchase Request.
In local government units, purchase requests are approved by the head
of office or department concerned which has administrative control of
the appropriation against which the proposed expenditure is chargeable
(See Sec. 361 ibid). 3) Preparation of Certificate of Availability of Funds.
The Certificate of Availability of Funds is the certification made by
the Chief Accountant of the agency or his duly authorized
representatives that funds have been duly appropriated/allotted for the
purpose of entering into a contract involving expenditures of public
funds and that the amount necessary to cover the proposed contract for
the current fiscal year is available for expenditure; 4) Preparation of Purchase Order. The Purchase Order is the document evidencing a transaction for the purchase of supplies and materials; 5) Approval of the Purchase Order.
The Purchase Order shall be delivered by the Agency Official authorized
for the purpose and within the limits of his authority; 6) Delivery of Purchase Order.
The Purchase Order shall be delivered by the Agency Official concerned
to the supplier within a reasonable time after its approval; 7 ) Delivery of Items.
Deliveries of materials being ordered must be made by the supplier in
accordance with the specifications, terms and conditions provided in the
purchase order, 8 ) Inspection of Item. Purchases made by the
agency must be inspected and verified by their authorized inspector for
conformity with specifications in the order; 9) Preparation of Certificate of Acceptance.
Acceptance of deliveries may be made only if the supplies and materials
delivered conform with the standards and specification stated in the
contract; and 10) Preparation of the Voucher. After the acceptance and inspection of delivery of the items comes the preparation of the voucher.

Testing the above-enumerated steps against the transaction subject of
the instant case, it would seem that there was compliance. However, a
closer scrutiny of the transaction will show otherwise.

We start with the lack of the required appropriation ordinance or
resolution to support the purchase of the subject vehicle. As borne out
by the records, the entry 97-04 under the column of Appropriation
Ordinance in the Advice of Allotment spawned the series of acts
culminating in the purchase of the subject vehicle. It provided the
information that appropriate funds existed for the purpose when there
was none. The Provincial Budget Officer, the Provincial Treasurer, the
Provincial Accountant and the respondent were all aware that when the
Advice of Allotment and the other documents related to the transaction
were prepared, there was neither an appropriation ordinance nor
resolution passed by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan for the purchase of
the vehicle.

Be it noted that Appropriation Ordinance No. 97-04 was the ordinance
for the budget of the year 1998 or current obligation. The column in
said ordinance under the Advice of Allotment dated September 3, 1998 was
filled up only to facilitate the transaction and to make it appear that
the transaction was duly supported by an appropriation ordinance.
Respondent’s justification that the questioned entry of 97-04 in the
Advice of Allotment was a mistake is a very flimsy defense. All along,
respondent’s wrongful intent could not have succeeded if no
appropriation ordinance number was mentioned in the advice. Hence, to
facilitate the transaction and to make it appear that there was a color
of legitimacy in the purchase, the numbers “97-04” was conveniently
cited. This scheme, however, must not be allowed to pass over. Even that
part of the defense of respondent that there was a verbal resolution or
appropriation for the purpose cannot hold water because this has no
factual basis. The recommendation of the committee on finance and
appropriation was only to grant the request of the respondent for
authority to secure a loan from the DBP Tabuk Branch. The aforesaid
recommendation is what respondent is banking on as the verbal resolution
or appropriation which is not the case. Appropriation Ordinance No.
97-04 which was indicated in the Advice of Allotment, refers to an
“Ordinance Providing for the Salaries of Officials and Personnel of the
Province of Kalinga for the Period of January 1, 1998 to December 31,
1998 and for other Purposes.”

Another point. Respondent kept on harping that the amount used in
the transaction came from an unappropriated fund. Assuming this to be
correct, a resolution or appropriation ordinance is still needed.
Section 305 (a) of the Local Government Code provides that no money
shall be paid out of the local treasury except in pursuance of an
appropriation ordinance or law.

The Notice of Suspension (Exhibit “Q”) on the transaction issued by
the Provincial Auditor is significant. It indicates that respondent
certified a given expense as necessary and lawful, when in truth and in
fact it was not.

Finally, there can be no quibbling that respondent acted in evident
bad faith. Evident bad faith implies a dishonest purpose in the
performance of one’s duty; a breach of some known duty through some
motive or interest or ill will It partakes of the nature of fraud.
(Board of Liquidators vs. Kalaw, 20 SCRA 987). In the instant case, it
is very clear that respondent knew all along that there was no
appropriation, resolution or ordinance for the purchase of the vehicle.
Yet he closed his eyes to this reality and proceeded with the purchase
of the vehicle on the basis of a fake entry on the Advice of Allotment.
For this, he must be penalized.

WHEREFORE, as recommended by the Department of the Interior and Local
Government respondent is found guilty of dishonesty and is hereby meted
the penalty of six (6) months suspension from office without pay,
effective upon receipt hereof.

Adopted: 16 Dec. 1999

By the President:

(SGD.) RONALDO B. ZAMORA
Executive Secretary