Republic of the Philippines al Court of Appeals ve Oli ie Manila = pa 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.C.,"" and HERNANDO, R.P.L., J.J -versus- Promulgated: OMBUDSMAN — CONCHITA JUN 17 2016 CARPIO MORALES, Sere AUSTERE A. PANADERO, JOSEFINA E. CASTILLO-GO, MARITA B. DEL VALLE, FROILAN, GRUEZO, PATERNO L. ESMAQUEL, and PILIPINAS PARA SA PINOY (PPP), CERTIFIED TRUE COPY Respondents. = Re-rafiled to Justice Ramon Pal ABR dated February 4, 2015. ‘Acting Chairperson as per Office Order No. 224-16-RSF dated June 7, 2016. cenior Member as pet Ollice Order No 224-16-RSF dated June 7, 2016, jl L. Hernando on March 16, 2013 as new ponente per Office Oruker No.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-i.-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 Anteceden 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 S. Zomosa, Jt., 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 Aifidavit-Complaint’ respondents alleged that on August 1, 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. Thereafter, two water supply contracts were also entered into Rollo, pp. 2 dd. Annex A, pp. Yk, Annes. “B", pp. 73-86: pp, 369-388, © fd, Annex °C, pp. 94-108, 5, pp. 125- id, Annex “E", pp. 125-182, Hd, Annex “D", pp. 11-124.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 considering that the public respondents also agreed for an allowable 25%9 rate of return in favor of IBDC, 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 still subject to deduction for other costs and charges: 3. 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 improvemenUupgrade of Majayjay’s water system 4, IBDC did not post the required performance security to gua faithful performance of its obligations under the bulk water contract prior to the signing thereat: 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 infrastructure projects. However, upon ve n, it was discovered that the Public 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 serutiny, 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 enteted 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 agreement was unconscionable, especially tee the ica Td, Water Supply Contract, Annex “L", pp. 940-949, tl. Water Supply Contract, Annex “MI”, pp. 950-959, © td, p. 165,CA-GR, SP No. 135415 DECISION Page 4 of 13 and responsibilities of supplying the water reguirements under said water supply contracts, including the penalties in case of default or delay and the posting of the performance security. The municipality, in elect, guaranteed IBDC's performance of its obligation. However, the only profit that the municipality of Majayjay would revenue share subject to the deductions stipulated under the bulk: water contract, while 90% of the proceeds would still go to BDC; and 8. In the bulk water contract, IBDC was authorized tw 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 contracts." 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.'? It has 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.'4 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 resullted 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. Hd pp. 16-78. td. p. 140. fa, Latta "fa. pot 1 fd. p32. "Ed. pp. 35-56,CA-GR. SP No. 135415 DECISION Page 5 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, Jr. and the SB members Rosas, fa, Aragon, Andaya, Zronosa, Jr, Mercolisa, Jr., Esquillo, and De Villa guilty of violation of Section 3(e) 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 respecutully recommended that Informations be filed in the proper court charging respondenis TEOFILO B. GUERA, ANA LINDA C. ROSAS, LAURO C MENTILLA, MAURO C, ARAGON, JUANCHO M. ANDAYA, ANTONIO S. ZORNOSA, IR.. MARIO O, MERCOLISA, JR., JOVANIE ANN G. ESQUILLO, BERNARDO 1, 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, ratify, 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 avy, 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 Tid, p11 ™ Supra, Note 1 "© Rollo, pp. 70-71 2 Supra, Note 2CA-GR. SP No. 135415 DECISION Page 6 of 13, government contracts.2! The falfo of the Decision reads: 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 O. 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 DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE, with the accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification from holding public office, and bar from taking civil serviee 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 case becomes moot and academic. If, however, the penalty of dismissal from the service can no longer be implemented because 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 to implement this Order immediately upon receipt hereof pursuant (o Section 7, Rule {11 of Administrative Order No. 07, as amended by Administrative Order No. 17 dated September 7. 2003, in relation to Memorandum Circular No, 1, Series of 2006 dated April 11, 2006, and to promptly inform the Office of the action taken thereon. [Citations Omitted.] SO DECIDED.” 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, Zornosa, Jr., Mercolisa, Jr. 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 a different position trom that which he previously held.* Hence, this Petition for Review. Rollo, p32 2k, pp. 387-3 Supra, Note 3 fd, p. 108,CA-GR, SP No, 135415 DECISION Page 7 of 13 Assignment of Errors Petitioners averred that: 53. The Ombudsman esred by contradicting herself 53.1. The Ombudsman admires. the bulk water contract. To all appearances, the municipality of Majayiay would even profit fiom the implementation of said contract without any capital or initial investment coming from its funds. and yet, afler describing positively the bulk water contract, the Ombudsman fip-fopped and jumped tw a strange opposite conclusion that the bulk water contraet 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 53.2, The Ombudsman having no expertise in water projects, erred in failing to consult the proper governmental authorities with expertise on water projects 54. Assuming without conceding that the bulk wate s 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 10 submit comparative proposals for the water project. 54.3. 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 wo nullily Sor 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 Mentilla to a higher position 55, 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 Rulin: We find the petition unmerit Rollo, pp. 28-29.CA-G.R. 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 correctly ruled that its jurisdiction extends only to decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative eases. In the © 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, It 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 action, [Citations Omitted.) Fabian case, we ruled that appeals from decisions of the Off 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 i is a criminal case. It is worthy to take note that the decisions of the Ombudsman in criminal cases. are unappealable.** In case the findings of the Ombudsman in criminal eases are tainied 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, Bundalian3* laid down the following guidelines for the judicial review of decisions rendered by administrative agencies in the exercise of their quasi-judicial power: Difiee of the Ombudsman v, Heirs of Vula, De Ventura, G.R. No. 151800, November 5, 2008. G.R. Nos. 140619-24, Mareh 9, 2001 2% Duyon v. Court of Appeals. G.R. No. ti ‘Ombudsman v. Bungubung. G.R. No, 1752 GAR, No, 149335, July 1, 2003. 18,, Novernber 26, 2014, April 23, 2008,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 i 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. Hence, it is not for the reviewing court to weigh the conlieting evidence, determine the or otherwise substitute its judgment for that of the credibility of witnesses administrative agency with respect to the sullicieney 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 sufficiency of the evidence in an admi originally instituted there’ additional evidence that was not submitted to the administrative agency concerned istrative case as if and do not authorize the court to receive 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.*? 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.4 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 $B 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 Cosmos Bortling Corporation v. Nagrama, Jr., G.R. No, 164403, March 4, 2008. ® Japson v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 199479, April 12, 2011 4 Letran Calamba Faculty and Employees Association v. National Lubor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 156225, January 29, 2008.CA-GR, 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 functions 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.37 A careful examination of the records shows that the SB_members jailed 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 ‘Algiandro v, Office OF the Ombudsman Fact-Finding Imelligence Bureau, G.R. No. 173121, April 3 2013. 8 Gunzon v, Arlos, G.R, No, 174321, October 22, 2013, phi % Rollo. pp. 381-382. ‘The Ombudsman ratiovinated as follows: A reading of the Bulk Water Contract shows that IBDC was accorded warranted 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/faclities, the subject bulk water contract was sill awarded to IBDC. Moreover, the requirements of the law regarding the awarding of government contracts were circumvented or implicitly waived in order 10 award the bulk water contract (0 IBDC. Furthermore, the provisions of said contact do not provide for any penalty or liability to be incurred by IBDC in case of default, delay, or failure on its part to fulfill its obligations therein, Also, the revenue shaving agreement therein is grossly in favor of IBDC, with only a small portion going to the municipality of Majayjay. Even if the initial 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 sand other benefits that would be generated by it forthe entire duration of the contract. ‘The records of the ease clearly demonstrate that the respondents wrongfully and arbitrarily used or took advantage of their position to extend unwarranted. bene! preference, and advantage to IBDC. In spite of the obvious defects and favs attend the provisions of the Bulk Water Contract and the process leading to the award of the same, the respondents still favoured IBDC to the damage and prejudice of the ‘municipality of Majayjay. The respondents filed to exercise the necessary prudence and the terms of said contract were Fair to the municipality. Their ‘mawitest 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 contracts, such as the bidding process and the requirements on the qualifications of a contractor for a project of such magnitude. These aets of the Fespondents demonstrate their willful intent to violate the applicable laws. rules. and regulations pertaining 10 government contracts » Seetion 4. Scope and 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 government, its departments, offices and agencies, includin government-owned anx/or-controlled corporations and lacal government units, subject t0 the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 138. Any treaty or international or executive agreement afleeti caution 0 ensure thiCA-GR, SP No, 135415 DECISION Page 11 of 13 requires that all procurement contraets 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 hot water supply projects. Furthermore, there was no indication of the amount of the project which if stated would have determined if IBDC was 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 matter ot his Act To which the Philippine government is signatory shall be observed. * RALNo. 9184, ection S(k). Wo tructure Projects - include the construction, improvement, rehabilitation, demolition, repair, restoration or maintenance of roads and bridges, railways, airports, seaports, communication facilities, civil works components. of information technology projeess, ivigation, Mood contral and drainage. water supply. sinitation, sewerage and solid waste management systems, shore protection, power and electrification facilities, national buildings, sehool buildings and other related construction projects of the government. [Emphasis Ours. ME ARTICLE IV COMPETITIVE BIDDING Seotion 10. Competiive Bidding.- All Procurement shall be done through Competitive Bidding, evcept as provided for in Article XVI ofthis Act © Rolla, p. 888. 8 hd, pp. 383-384 The Ombudsman ratiocinated as follows Corollary thereto, after « careful review af 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 ef potable water 10 the water buyers, ie. the municipalities of Lumban and Sta, Cruz, together with all the other obligations stated therein. Moreover, the municipality of Majayjay would be answerable tnd 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 assunting obligations and respansibilities the fulfilment of which it has no control over, since itis 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 party to the water supply contracts, its free from any liability that may arise therefrom. Thus, for all intents andl purposes, itis the municipality of Majayjay that would be answeruble to the municipalities of Lumban and Sta. Cruz in case of any breach, default, oF delay in the delivery of the specified volume of potable water by IBDC. This situation places Majayiay at a gross and manifest disadvanta the Fault or breach ofa third party. .¢ because it would be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 offi duties: (a) Commitment to publie interest. - Public officials and employees shall always uphold the public interest over and above personal interest. All government resources and powers of their respective offices must be employed and used elficiently, effectively, honestly and economically, particularly to avoid wastage in public funds and revenues. (b) Professionalism. - Publie 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.] 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 lations 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-12-0332-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 VIIL, 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 § PHEN C. CRUZ Associate Justice Acting Chairperson, Special Fifth Division