Cavite exec’s dismissal over P170-K deal upheld
The Court of Appeals (CA) has upheld the Ombudsman’s dismissal of a municipal engineer in Silang, Cavite, over the “simulated” bidding for flowers and string lights used in a ball celebrating the Feast of Nuestra Señora de Candelaria in 2023.
Robert Marquina was found liable for signing off on the irregular procurement of flowers worth an estimated P70,000 and 1,000 string light bulbs valued at P100,000, with the bidding documents prepared and issued only after the event took place on Jan. 28, 2023.
The Silang municipal government issued a purchase request of P170,000 for the items on Jan. 13, which was prepared by the municipal administrator and the bids and awards committee (BAC). It was approved by then Silang, Cavite Mayor Alston Kevin Anarna and certified by the treasurer.
The BAC chair later sent out requests for quotations to three bidders. After two weeks, the obligation requests were issued, and the local government purchased the items from Badeth Merchandise.
On Jan. 5, 2024, the Commission on Audit (COA) issued an observation memorandum indicating that the procurement of the flowers and string lights was irregular and illegal, as the bidding documents, including the Philippine Government Electronic Procurement System or PhilGEPS bid notice abstract, were dated and issued after the event already took place.
Postdated
The COA noted that the bid notice abstract was created on Jan. 31, three days after the Silangueño Ball was held, while the request for quotation was published online on Feb. 1.
Anarna, however, denied the bidding was simulated, explaining there was a delay in the documentation process and that the usual disbursement and accounting procedures had been complied with.
Nonetheless, the COA subsequently issued notices of disallowance and complaints were filed before the Office of the Ombudsman against Silang officials, including Anarna and Marquina.
In its probe, the Ombudsman’s Field Investigation Office found that Badeth Merchandise was not registered with the Business Permit and Licensing Office of Silang. It was also discovered that no string lights were actually procured, as the ones used during the event had been rented. As for the flowers, the value of the ones delivered was much lower than the amount supposedly paid.
In his defense, Marquina maintained that he could not be held liable for the crimes charged, as there was no evidence of corruption or proof that he personally benefited from the questioned procurement. He also said he did not cause any damage to any person or association since the funds were used for their intended purpose.
But the Ombudsman, in its decision, held him and other respondents liable, saying that even though the questioned procurement falls within the threshold for small value procurement, they blatantly ignored the guidelines specified under Republic Act No. 9184 by conducting the procurement process only after the ball took place.
Appeal filed
Marquina elevated his case to the CA, arguing, among others, that the Ombudsman gravely erred in imposing extreme penalties that were not commensurate with his alleged acts.
But in denying his petition, the CA said that his act of signing the bid and procurement documents constituted serious dishonesty and grave misconduct.
“Being a member of LGU (local government unit) Silang’s BAC, petitioner was duty-bound to know and follow the law and yet, he did not comply with the required procurement process in a flagrant manner and with such disregard for the same,” the CA Third Division said in the ruling penned by Associate Justice Ruben Roxas.
The lack of evidence that Marquina gained financial benefit from the procurement was immaterial, the CA noted, because corruption, as an element of grave misconduct, “consists in the official’s unlawful and wrongful use of his position to procure some benefit—a benefit that may redound for the official himself or for another person, in this case, Badeth Merchandise.”
“All told, while petitioner may not be held accountable for serious dishonesty, he is liable for grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty, both of which are grave offenses punishable by dismissal from service,” the CA said.
“Hence, the penalty of dismissal and its appurtenant penalties that the Ombudsman imposed are still in order and need not be disturbed,” it added.
In October 2024, the Ombudsman ordered Anarna’s dismissal from office and barred him from holding a government post after it found him guilty of grave misconduct and serious dishonesty.
Though Anarna was reelected in the May midterm polls, he was disqualified by the Commission on Elections, which cited the Ombudsman’s ruling.
