Republic of the Philippines Court of Appeals ya Os. Manila SPECIAL FIFTH (5'") DIVISION LAURO CORPUZ MENTILLA, CA-G.R. SP No. 135415" ANA LINDA CLARITO ROSAS, MAURO CONESE ARAGON, JUANCHO MALINIS ANDAYA, ANTONIO SUAZO ZORNOSA, MARIO ORDONEZ MERCOLISA, and Member: JOVANIE ANN GRUEZO = CRUZ, S.C.,." ESQUILLO, Chairperson Petitioners, LANTION, J.A. and HERNANDO, R.P.L., J.J -versus- Promulgated: OMBUDSMAN = CONCHITA JUN 17 2016 /* CARPIO MORALES, eer rere AUSTERE A. PANADERO, JOSEFINA E. CASTILLO-GO, MARITA B. DEL VALLE, CERTIFIED TRUE COPY FROILAN GRUEZO, PATERNO L. ESMAQUEL, and PILIPINAS PARA SA PINOY (PPP), ‘Court of Appeals Respondents. led to Justi -15-ABR dated mon Paul L. Hemanclo on March 16, 2015 as new ponenie per Office Order No. 201 a der No. 224-16-RSF dated June 7, 2016, ‘as per Office Onder No. 224-16-RSF dated June 7, 2016,CA-G.R. SP No. 135415 DECISION Page 2 of 13 DECISION HERNANDO, J: Assailed in this Petition for Review! are the Decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in Case Nos. OMB-L-C-12-0300-G? and OMB-L-A-12- 0332-G? both dated February 21, 2013 finding petitioners guilty of Violation of Section 3(g) of Republic Act No. 3019 and Grave Misconduct, respectively, and its Joint Order! dated February 18, 2014 denying their motions for reconsideration The Antecedents Petitioners Ana Linda C. Rosas was elected Vice-Mayor of the Municipality of Majayjay, Laguna in 2012. On the other hand, Lauro C Mentilla, Mauro C. Aragon, Juancho M. Andaya, Antonio $. Zomosa, Jr. Mario O. Mercolisa, Jr., and Jovanie Ann G. Esquillo, were the members of the Sangguniang Bayan of said municipality. On June 14, 2012, private respondents Froilan Gruezo and Pilipinas Para sa Pinoy (PPP), a non-stock non-profit organization, filed an Affidavit- Complaint’ before the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) against the petitioners Majayjay Mayor Teofilo Guera, Sangguniang Bayan (SB) member Bernardo de Villa, and Arcadio B. Gapangada, Jr., President of Israel Builders and Development Corporation (IBDC), for violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019 otherwise known as Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and for grave misconduct. In their Affidavit-Complaint,° respondents alleged that on August |, 2011, the municipal government of Majayjay, Laguna represented by Mayor Guera entered into a “Contract for the Supply of Bulk Water”? with IBDC President Gapangada, Jr. for the rehabilitation and improvement of the Majayjay Water System in order to deliver better water service to the municipality. Therealter, two water supply contracts were also entered into Rolla, pp. 44 Hd, Nomex “A”, pp. 45-71 Ud, Annex + Jd, Annex 5 fd. pp, 125-182. © Ed, Nanex “Epp. 12: ul, Annex “D™, pp. H1-124CA-GR. SP No. 135415 DECISION Page 3 of 13 between the municipalities of Lumban and Majayjay, and between the municipalities of Sta. Cruz” and Majayjay."” Respondents claimed that the contracts were grossly disadvantageous to the municipality of Majayjay due to several reasons, which, as summarized by the Ombudsman, were as follows: 1. The term of the bulk water contract virtually monopolized the right to extract and enjoy the water resources of Majayjay in favor of IBDC, to the great disadvantage and prejudice of the municipality and its inhabitants: The revenue sharing agreement was unconscionable. especially considering that the public respondents also agreed for an allowable 25% rate of retum in favor of [BDC, despite the 12% reasonable rate of return allowed by law for companies engaged in public utility businesses. Furthermore, said 10% revenue share of the municipality ‘was stil] subject to deduction for other costs and charges: The bulk water contract did not provide any specific undertaking for IBDC regarding the amount of capital/investment it would infuse and spend for the completion of the project and the improvement/upgrade of Majayjay's water system; 4. IBDC did not post the required performance security to guarantee the faithful performance of its obligations under the bulk water contract prior to the signing thereof: 5. The public respondents used the Public-Private Partnership Program (PPP) of the national government in order to circumvent the strict requirements provided by law on bidding and award of infrastructu projects. However, upon verification, it was discovered that the Publi Private Center of the Philippines (PPP Center) was not involved in the preparation of the bid documents, drafting of the bulk water contract, and selection of IBDC as the winning private proponent. The PPP Center never received any copy of the subject bulk water contract or any other related documents; 6. The bulk water contract stated that the formal proposal of IBDC was treated as an unsolicited proposal in accordance with the issued guidelines on joint ventures pursuant to Section 8 of Executive Order No. 423 dated April 30, 2005. However, upon closer scrutiny, said contract was entered into pursuant to R.A. No. 7718 as it involved an important and priority project. However, the contract did not comply with the provisions of said law in the execution of the same. i.e. there was not publication and no approval by the development council or the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA), and its term exceeded the maximum period provided under the law: 7. The water supply contracts were entered into with the municipality of Majayjay as the water supplier and the municipalities of Lumban and Sta, Cruz as the buyers. IBDC was not a party to either of the water supply contracts, and thus. did not assume any obligation to the buyers, In other words, the municipality of Majayjay assumed all obligations STE, Water Supply Contract. Ar °F, Water Supply Contract, Annex dd, p. 165. (ex “L". pp, 940-949, *. pp. 950-959,CA-GR. SP No. 135415 DECISION Page 4 of 13, and responsibilities of supplying the water requirements under said water supply contracts. including the penalties in case of default or delay and the posting of the performance security. The municipality, in effect, guaranteed IBDC’s performance of its obligation. However, the only profit that the municipality of Majayjay would gain is the 10% revenue share subject to the deductions stipulated under the bulk water contract, while 90% of the proceeds would still go to IBDC; and 8. In the bulk water contract, [BDC was authorized to collect the water payments from the bulk water buyers such as the municipalities of Lumban and Sta. Cruz, despite it not being a party to the water supply Respondents also alleged that [BDC is not a water utility company nor a company engaged in water business but is actually a real estate company.' Ithas no financial capacity, legal qualification and technical requirements to undertake the project. Respondents then wrote a letter to the SB members asking them to stop the implementation of the projects because the contracts were void." However, the latter failed to issue a resolution in their favor. In his defense, Gapangada, Jr. averred that the bulk water contract was valid and legal since it was akin to a joint venture. Hence, the guidelines on joint venture agreements governed the same and not R.A. No. 7718. He further claimed that the feasibility study that was made at his own expense was submitted to the municipality of Majayjay and was subsequently published without anyone challenging the proposal stated therein. This resulted to the awarding of the water project to IBDC."* Mayor Guera corroborated Gapangada, Jr's statements. He stressed that R.A. Nos, 7718 and 9184 are not applicable to the bulk water contract since it was an unsolicited proposal and was not classified as a “procurement”.!® He further alleged that he submitted to the SB members the proposal from IBDC and a public hearing was then conducted. IBDC submitted its proposal for a contractual venture agreement which was also forwarded to the SB. Thereafter, the latter's members authorized Mayor Guera to enter into a contract with IBDC. The SB members subsequently amended the contract and was then immediately implemented. The SB members, on the other hand, affirmed that they gave Mayor Guera full authority to negotiate and enter into a contract with IBDC as well as the two other contracts with the municipalities of Lumban and Sta. Cruz with the honest belief that all the legal procedures were fully complied with. TH, pp. 16-78. 2 kp. 140, 1 id, 1al-142, M Ud. p. 174 fd, p82. "6 Ids pp. 35956.CA-GR. SP No. 135415 DECISION Page § of 13 ‘Their act was pursuant to the general welfare clause of the Local Government Code of 1991.'7 Afterwards, respondents sent a letter to stop the implementation of the contracts due to irregularities. However, the SB failed to resolve the issue because it does not have the power to stop the on- going projects and to declare void the subject contracts. The SB members further assert that they did not participate in the execution of the contracts and the proceedings thereof. They merely ratified the contracts particularly the bulk water supply with IBDC. On February 21, 2013, the Ombudsman rendered a Decision'® finding Mayor Guera, Gapangada, Jt. and the SB members Rosas, Mentilla, Aragon, Andaya, Zronosa, Jn, Mercolisa, Jr, Esquillo, and De Villa guilty of violation of Section 3(c) of R.A. No. 3019. It reasoned that Guera, in conspiracy with the respondents SB members, entered and approved the bulk water contract with IBDC which was apparently defective. This led to unwarranted benefits and advantage given to IBDC to the prejudice of the municipality of Majayjay. As to the two other contracts, the Ombudsman found only Mayor Guera liable thereof due to absence of conspiracy with the SB members. The dispositive portion of the Ombudsman Decision reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered itis _ respectfully recommended that Informations be filed in the proper court charging respondents TEOFILO B. GUERA, ANA LINDA C. ROSAS, 1-AURO C MENTILLA, MAURO C, ARAGON, JUANCHO M. ANDAYA, ANTONIO S. ZORNOSA. IR., MARIO 0, MERCOLISA. JR., JOVANIE (ANN G, ESQUILLO, BERNARDO I. DE VILLA, and ARCADIO B. GAPANGADA, JR. with one (1) count of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 for conspiring among themselves to enter into, ratily, and implement the Contract for the Supply of Bulk Water dated August 1, 2011. Likewise, it is respectfully recommended that Informations be filed in the proper court charging respondent TEOFILO B, GUERA with two (2) counts of violation of Section 3(g) of the same law, for entering into two (2) Water Supply Contracts dated December 30, 2011 SO RESOLVED.” In another Decision rendered on the same date, the Ombudsman likewise found Mayor Guera and the SB members guilty of grave misconduct due to their failure?” to exercise the necessary prudence and caution to ensure that the terms of the contracts were fair to the municipality. Furthermore, in granting and approving the contracts, they blatantly violated the procedures, rules and regulations provided by laws on the award of TH. p. 191 ™ Supra, Note | © Rollo, pp. 70-71 2 Supra, Note 2CA-GR, SP No. 135415 DECISION government contracts.?! The fullo of the Decision reads: a differ Rolo, Supra Md. p. WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondents TEOFILO B. GUERA, ANA LINDA C. ROSAS, LAURO C, MENTILLA, MAURO C ARAGON, JUANCHO M. ANDAYA, ANTONIO S. ZORNOSA, JR.. MARIO 0. MERCOLISA. JR., JOVANIE ANN G. ESQUILLO, and BERNARDO I. DE VILLA are found GUILTY of the administrative offense of GRAVE MISCONDUCT and are hereby meted the penalty of AL FROM SERVICE, with the accessory penalties of cancellation of cligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification from holding public office, and bar from taking civil service examinations. If by virtue of the May 13, 2013 elections, any of the respondents, are re-elected to the same elective position that they are currently holding: then the doctrine in the case of Aguinaldo v. Santos, et al. still apply and the instant administrative ease becomes moot and academic. If, however, the penalty of dismissal from the service can no longer be implemented beeause of expiration of term or separation from the service, then the corresponding accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits. perpetual disqualification from holding public office, and bar from taking civil service examinations still apply The Honorable Secretary. Department of Interior and Local Government , is hereby directed 10 implement this Order immediately upon receipt hereof pursuant to Section 7, Rule IIL of Administrative Order No. 07, as amended by Administrative Order No. 17 dated September 7. 2003, in relation to Memorandum Cireular No. 1. Series of 2006 dated ‘April 11, 2006, and to promptly inform the Office of the action taken thereon. [Citations Omitted.] SO DECIDED” Page 6 of 13 Petitioners, together with Mayor Guera and Gapangada, Jr., filed motions for reconsideration on both Decisions. In its Joint Order® dated February 18, 2014, the Ombudsman denied the motions. Nonetheless, it declared the administrative case against Andaya, Zomosa, Jr., Mercolisa, Ir. and de Villa moot and academic by virtue of the Aguinaldo Doctrine since they were re-elected for the same position, However, as for Mentilla, the Ombudsman declared that the doctrine will not apply since he was elected to rent position from that which he previously held.?* Hence, this Petition for Review. 1d, pp. 387-388. a, Note 3. 1s,CA-G.R. SP No. 135415 DECISION Page 7 of 13 ignment of Errors Petitioners averred that: 53. The Ombudsman erred by contradicting herself: 53.1. The Ombudsman admires. the bulk water contract, To all appearances, the municipality of Majayjay would even profit from the implementation of said contract without any capital or initial investment coming from its funds, and yet, after describing positively the bulk water contract, the Ombudsman flip-flopped and jumped to a strange opposite conclusion that the bulk water contract is a violation of the Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices Act specifically for alleged violation of Section 3(g) of RA No. 3019 and that petitioner allegedly perpetrated Grave Misconduct. ‘The Ombudsman having no expertise in water projects, erred ies with in failing to consult the proper governmental autho expertise on water projects. 54, Assuming without conceding that the bulk water is irregular 54.1. The Ombudsman erred in forcibly connecting petitioners to the contract despite the fact that petitioners had no part in the contract 54.2. The only imaginable link between. petitioners and the contract is their vote in the collegial Sangguniang Bayan authorizing the Mayor to invite applications for eligibility to submit comparative proposals for the water project. $4.3. If the Mayor erred in performing his authority, then the proper recourse is to exhaust administrative remedies, such as that in the National Water Resources Board, or pursue a civil case to nullify ior declare unenforceable &/or rescind the Regional Trial Court. 54.3.1. The Ombudsman erred in making a mockery of the people's verdict doctrine (Aguinaldo doctrine) more especially so here where the people decided to re-elect petitioner Lauro Corpuz Mentill to & higher posi The Ombudsman erred in failing to see the obvious brazen reality that this case is nothing more than pure and simple raw TRADITIONAL POLITICS (TRAPO)25 The Court's Ruling We find the petition unmeritorious. 5 Rollo, pp. 28-29.CA-GR, SP No, 135415 DECISION Page 8 of 13 ‘At the outset, the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over orders, directives and decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases only.2° Thus, it cannot review the orders, directives or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal or non-administrative cases, This was clarified by the Supreme Court in Kuizon v Desierto where it held that: ‘The appellate court correetly ruled that its jurisdiction extends only to decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases. In the Fabian case, we ruled that appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. It bears stressing that when we declared Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 as unconstitutional, we categorically stated that said provision is involved only whenever an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 is taken from a decision in an administrative disciplinary action. {t cannot be taken into account where an original action for certiorari under Rule 65 is resorted to as a remedy for judicial review, such as from an incident in a criminal aetion, {Citations Omitted.] Here, the Joint Order dated February 18, 2014 of the Ombudsman involves both Case No. OMB-L-C-12-0300-G finding petitioners guilty of Violation of Section 3(g) of Republic Act No. 3019, and Case No. OMB-L- A-12-0332-G for Grave Misconduct, Evidently, petitioners availed of the wrong remedy as to. Case No. OMB-L-C-12-0300-G. We cannot entertain the same for lack of jurisdiction since it is a criminal case. It is worthy to take note that the decisions of the Ombudsman in criminal cases are unappealable.2* In case the findings of the Ombudsman in criminal cases are tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the remedy of the aggrieved party is to elevate the same before the Supreme Court” Thus, this Court will confine itself only to the administrative case appealed before it. In administrative proceedings, the complainant must prove by substantial evidence the allegations in his complaint. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla of evidence. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds equally reasonable might conceivably opine otherwise.” The Supreme Court, in Montemayor v. Bundalian,*' laid down the following guidelines for the judicial review of decisions rendered by administrative agencies in the exercise of their quasi-judicial power: 3 Oitiee ofthe Ombudsman v, Heirs of Va, De Ventura, G.R. No, 151800, November 5.2008. 2 GAR, Nos. 140619-24, March 9, 2001 25 Duyon v- Court of Appeals, G.R. No, 172218., November 26, 2014 * hid. * Ombudsman y, Bungubung. G.R. No, 175201, April 23,2008. 1) GR. No. 149335, July 1, 2003.CA-G.R. SP No. 135415 DECISION Page 9 of 13, First, the burden is on the complainant to prove by substantial evidence the allegations in his complaint. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla of evidence. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds equally reasonable might conceivably opine otherwise. Second, in reviewing administrative decisions of the executive branch of the government, the findings of facts made therein are to be respected so Jong as they are supported by substantial evidence. Henee, it is not for the reviewing court to weigh the conflicting evidence, determine the credibility of witnesses, or otherwise substitute its judgement for that of the administrative agency with respect to the sufficiency of evidence. Third, administrative decisions in matters within the executive jurisdiction can only be set aside on proof of gross abuse of discretion, fraud, or error of law. These principles negate the power of the reviewing court to re- examine the sufliciency of the evidence in an administrative case as if originally instituted therein, and do not authorize the court to receive additional evidence that was not submitted to the administrative agency concerned Corollarily, We stress that the courts accord great respect and even finality on factual findings made by quasi-judicial bodies and administrative agencies when supported by substantial evidence.? This is because administrative agencies possess specialized knowledge and expertise in their respective fields.°s Consequently, their findings of fact are binding upon this, Court unless there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion, or where it is clearly shown that they were arrived at arbitrarily or in disregard of the evidence on record. In this case, petitioners insist that it was Mayor Guera who had the sole authority, in the exercise of his executive function, to determine the qualifications of IBDC and the validity of the bulk water supply contracts. Such duty is not part of the authority of the SB as a collegial legislative body. The SB members simply ratified the contracts in good faith based on the justifications made by Mayor Guera and Gapangada, Jr. In fact, they did not participate in any bidding process, publication or performance of bond requirements and other processes related to the grant of the bulk water supply contract to IBDC, Hence, petitioners cannot be faulted in case of irregularities and non-compliance with the procedures stated in the applicable laws Petitioners’ contentions are misplaced. Misconduct is defined as an intentional wrongdoing or a deliberate amos Boitling Corporation v. Nagrama, Jr, G.R. No. 164403, March 4, 2008, Japson v. Civil Service Commission, G.R, No. 189479, April 12, 2011 4 Letran Calamba Faculty and Employees Assoeiation v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 156225, January 29, 2008.CA-G.R. SP No. 135415 DECISION Page 10 of 13, violation of the law or a standard of behavior, or a flagrant disregard of established rules.» To constitute an administrative offense, it must relate to or be connected with the performance of the official funetions and duties of a public officer.* In grave misconduct, as distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of an established rule must be manifest” ‘A careful examination of the records shows that the SB_ members failed to properly examine and investigate the water supply contracts entered into by Mayor Guera despite the dubious provisions in the contracts. As aptly observed by the Ombudsman, there is no evidence indicating that in granting the bulk water contract to IBDC, Mayor Guera complied with the bidding, publication and other procedural requirements pertaining to government contracts.** This is in clear violation of R.A. No. 9184 otherwise known as "Government Procurement Reform Act"? which Smbudsman FaetFinding neligence Bureau, G.R. No, 173121, April 3 Alejandro v. Office oF the 2013, anzon v. Arlos, G.R. No. 174321, October 22, 2013, Ibid, % Rollo, pp. 381-33 The Ombudsman ratiocinated as follows: A reading of the Bulk Water Contract shows that IBDC was accorded warrante benefits, advantage. or preference under the provisions. Despite its lack of financial capacity. and technical expertise regarding the construction, rehabilitation, operation, and/or maintenance of water work systems facilities, the subject bulk water contract was still awarded to IBDC. Moreover, the requirements of the law regarding the awarding of govemment contracts were circumvented or implicitly waived in order to award the bulk water eontract {0 IBDC. Furthermore, the provisions of seid contract do not provide For any penalty or liability to be inewrred by IBDC in case of default, delay, or failure on its part te fulfil its obligations therein, Also, the revenue sharing agreement therein is grossly in favor of IBDC, with only a small portion going to the municipality of Majayjay. Even if the inital expenses incurred prior to the operation of the water work system are deducted from said share of IBDC. such deduction is infinitesimal when compared to the revenue and other benefits that would be generated by it forthe entire duration of the contract The records of the case clearly demonstrate that the respondents wrongfully and arbitvarily used or took advantage of their position to extend unwarranted benefits preference, and advantage to IBDC. In spite of the obvious detects and flaws attendant in the provisions of the Bulk Water Contract and the process leading to the award of the same, the respondents still favoured [BDC to the damage and prejudice of the ‘municipality of Majayjay. The respondents failed to exercise the necessary prudence and caution to ensure that the terms of said contract were fair to the municipality. Their manifest partiality and evident bad faith were unmistakably shown when they circumvented the procedures and safeguards provided for by the law regarding the award of government contraets, such as the bidding process and the requirements on the qualifications of a contractor for a project of such magnitude, These acts of the Fespondents demonstrate their willful intent to violate the applicable laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to government contracts, » ‘Section 4. Seope andl Application This act shall apply to the Procurement of Infrastructure Projects, Goods and Consulting Services, regardless of source of funds, whether local of foreign, by all branches and instrumentalities of yovernment, its departments, offices and agencies, includ government-owned andor-controlled corporations and local government units, subject to the provisions of Commonvealth Act No. 138. Any testy or international or executive azreement atfetinCA-GR, SP No. 135415 DECISION Page 11 of 13 requires that all procurement contracts including infrastructure projects," such as water supply like in this case, must be done through a competitive bidding.#! Also, IBDC lacked the technical requirements to conduct the project. Although it was authorized to construct water supply projects classified as Small B, it is stated in its Articles of Incorporation that the main purpose of its business is to primarily engage in real estate development and not water supply projects.#? Furthermore, there was no indication of the amount of the project which if stated would have determined if IBD indeed qualified to implement the project. Other provisions in case of default of the parties were also not stated in the contract. The Ombudsman likewise correctly observed that the two water supply contracts with the municipalities of Lumban and Sta. Cruz were prejudicial to the Municipality of Majayjay. This is because the Municipality of Majayjay would be solely liable for damages, delay or breach of obligations the fulfillment of which would entirely depend on IBDC. These facts should have forthwith raised a red flag that there are anomalies or violations committed in the grant of the the Subject malier of this Actto which the Philippine government is signatory shall be observed. © RA, No, 9184, Section 5(k). (k) Infrastructure Projects ide the construction, improvement, rehabilitation, demolition, repair, restoration or maintenance of roads and bridges. railways, aisports, seaports. communication facilites, civil works components of information technology projects. irrigation, flood control and drainage. water supply, sanitation, sewerage and solid waste management systems, shore protection, ‘energy!power and electrification facilities, national buildings, school buildings and other related construction projects of the government. [Emphasis Ours.] 41 ARTICLE IV COMPETITIVE BIDDING Section 10. Compesiive Bidkling.- AML Procurement shall be done through Competitive Bidding, except as provided for in Article XVI of this Act. Rollo, p. 888, “The Ombudsman ratiocinated as follows: Corallary thereto, after a careful review of the two water supply contracts, it is apparent trom the provisions that the municipality of Majayjay, as the water supplier ‘would be responsible For delivering a specific volume of potable water to the water Buyers, Le. the municipalities of Lumban and Sta. Cruz, together with all the other obligations stated therein. Moreover, the municipality of Majayjay would be answerable fand liable for damages and penalties in case of default or delay in the fulfillment of its ‘obligations as provided in the water supply contracts. In effect, the municipality of Majayjay would be assuming obligations and responsibilities the fulfillment of which it has no control over, since it is actually [BDC that would be operating, managing, and maintaining the infrastructure, facilities ‘machineries, and equipment for bulk water supply and the bulk water supply distribution System of Majayjay. as provided for in the bulk water contract, Since IBDC is not a party to the water supply contracts, itis free from any lability that may arise therefrom. ‘Thus, for all intents andl purposes, itis the municipality of Majayjay that would be answerable to the municipalities of Lumban and Sta. Cruz in case of any breach, default, or delay in the delivery of the specified volume of potable water by IBDC. This Situation places Majayjay at a gross and manifest disadvantage beeause it would be ‘suaranteeing the fault or breach of a third partyCA-GR, SP No. 135415 DECISION Page 12 of 13 project, Evidently, the petitioners, as SB members, failed to properly discharge and execute their official duties in ratifying the contracts in evident transgression of Section 4 of R.A. No. 6713 otherwise known as the "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees”. which mandates that: 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: (2) Commitment to public interest. - Public officials and employees shall always uphold the publie 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. jc officials and employees shall perform and discharge their duties with the highest degree of excellence, professionalism, intelligence and skill, They shall enter public service with utmost devotion and dedication to duty. They shall endeavor to discourage wrong perceptions of their roles as dispensers or peddlers of undue patronage. [Emphasis Ours.] (b) Professionalism. - Pub Here, petitioners’ act of ratifying the contracts constitutes a flagrant disregard of the established law. They were utterly remiss in their duties to thoroughly examine the contracts. They failed to determine whether all the procedures for their execution had been complied with in order to render the same valid and enforceable. Despite the glaring violations of law and irregularities, the SB members opted to ratify the contracts based merely on the alleged explanations of Mayor Guera. This consequently caused damage and prejudice to the Municipality of Majayjay. Thus, petitioners failed to uphold the interest of the Municipality. In exercising their duties, they failed to discharge their functions with the highest degree of excellence, professionalism, intelligence and skill in violation of the Code. ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the February 21, 2013 Decision of the Ombudsman in Case No. OMB-L-A-12-0332-G finding petitioners guilty of Grave Misconduct and that part of the Joint Order dated February 18, 2014 denying their Motion for Reconsideration as to Case No. OMB-L-A-]2-0332-G. The Petition for Review assailing the Ombudsman Decision and JointCA-GR. SP No. 135415 DECISION Page 13 of 13, Order as to Case No. OMB-L-A-12-0332-G is therefore DENIED, while the prayer in said Petition for Review seeking the reversal of the Ombudsman Decision and Joint Order as to Case No. OMB-L-C-12-0300-G is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. SO ORDERED. ORIGINAL SIGNED RAMON PAUL L. HERNANDO. Associate Justice WE CONCUR: ORIGINAL SIGNED ORIGINAL SIGNED STEPHEN C. CRUZ JANE AURORA C, LANTION Associate Justice Associate Justice CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Article VII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court. ORIGINAL SIGNED STEPHEN C. CRUZ Associate Justice Acting Chairperson, Special Fifth Division