ChanRobles Virtual law Library
PHILIPPINE LAWS, STATUTES & CODES
A collection of Philippine laws, statutes and codes not included or cited in the main indices of the Chan Robles Virtual Law Library.
:
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ PHILIPPINE LAWS, STATUTES & CODES
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 158 -
DISMISSING DAVID T. ROJAS, SEBASTIAN I. JULIAN, AND ZENAIDA C.
SEBASTIAN, ALL ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATORS OF THE NATIONAL IRRIGATION
ADMINISTRATION, FROM THE SERVICE.
This refers to the administrative complaint
against three (3) officials of the National Irrigation Administration
(NIA), namely: Atty. DAVID T. ROJAS, NIA Assistant Administrator for
Administrative Services; Engr. SEBASTIAN I. JULIAN NIA Assistant
Administrator for Systems Operation and Equipment Management, and Ms.
ZENAIDA C. SEBASTIAN, NIA Assistant Administrator for Finance and
Management, for dishonesty, misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the best
interest of the service, inefficiency in the performance of official
duties, and neglect of duty.
Through a reversal of several cases of alleged anomalies at the NIA
from the Gising Bayan Foundation, Inc., the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI) initiated an inquiry into the activities of several
NIA officials and employees, in relation with the procurement of drill
bits, parts and accessories for the Communal Irrigation Project or CIP
in Laur, Nueva Ecija. Thereafter, the NBI transmitted its
report/findings to the Ombudsman with recommendations for the criminal
and administrative prosecution of several NIA officials and employees,
including the herein respondents.
After evaluation of the NBI findings and recommendations the Office of
the Ombudsman prepared a First Supplement Evaluation Report, dated June
7, 1989, and transmitted the same, together with the NBI report, to my
Office and the Department of Public Works and Highways for the
administrative investigation of the involved NIA
personnel.
The NBI report recommending administrative proceedings against
respondents for violation of:
a.
b.
c.
as evaluated by the Office of the Ombudsman, because the basis of the
Memorandum issued by my Office, dated July 24, 1989, formally charging
respondents with dishonesty, misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the
best interest of the service, inefficiency in the performance of
officials duties, and neglect of duty; and directing them to file their
answer to the charges and to state therein whether they are electing a
formal investigation of the charges or whether they are waiving their
right to such investigation.
In addition, my Office directed the Secretary of Justice to constitute
an ad hoc Committee to investigate respondents, who are all
presidential appointees. Accordingly, the Secretary of Justice issued
Department Order No. 132, dated July 27, 1989, constituting the
three-man ad hoc investigating committee.
Formal hearing, which started on August 30, 1989, and ended on November
9, 1989, was set against the antecedents as recited in the Resolution
of the Ad Hoc Investigating Committee, dated December 19, 1989, thus:
"It appears that under RA 6642 (Appropriations Act of 1989), the
national Irrigation Administration was granted a fund allocation of
P420,000,000.00 for construction and rehabilitation of Communal
Irrigation Systems (subsidy support). Drawing from this fund, the NIA
sought to implement several projects denominated COMMUNAL IRRIGATION
PROJECTS or CIPS. There were 16 CIPs, nine (9) of which were allegedly
attended by anomalies.
"One of the questioned projects is the Laur CIP, Nueva Ecija, for which
P17,758,873.72 was allegedly spent for the purchase of 901 assorted
drilling bits, accessories and spare parts bearing the following brand:
'Diamant Boart', 'Longyear' and 'Tone'.
"Said items were allegedly procured in 29 negotiated purchases effected
through falsification of official supporting documents to do away with
the required public bidding.
"Only three (3) suppliers are involved in the twenty-nine (29)
transactions subject of the inquiry, namely: BLIMS General Merchandise
Gravel and Sand (BLIMS), with address at 110 Kaingin Road, Masambong,
Quezon City; Central Luzon Mahogany Corporation (CLMC), 209-215 E. de
los Santos Ave., Greenhills Ave., San Juan, M.M.; and TECHNOQUIP
MACHINERY, INC. (TMI), 5th Floor Champaca Condominium, Legaspi Village,
Makati, M.M. Purchased were a total of '. . . 901 units of 45 (should
be 54) different types of Longyear, Diamant Boart, and Tone
part/accessories . . . '.
"The supporting documents of purchases such as the requisition and
issue vouchers (RIVs), disbursement vouchers, and a certification, all
indicated that the items were described as 'exclusive' and 'unique' to
make it appear that the items were under the sole and exclusive
distributorship of one company for the purpose of doing away with
public bidding.
"The technical description of the items as 'unique' made it difficult
to ascertain the identification thereof for purposes of canvassing and
in determining the real price from other distributors."
In said Resolution, the Ad Hoc investigating Committee, found,
vis-a-vis the twenty-nine (29) transactions involving the LAUR CIP,
that EO 301, series of 1987, has been deliberately violated. EO 301
prescribes the procurement of supplies and equipment thru public
bidding, except, inter alia, whenever the materials are sold by an
exclusive distributor/manufacturer who does not have sub-dealers
selling at lower prices and for which no suitable substitute can be
obtained elsewhere at more advantageous terms to the government (Sec. 1[c]). On the basis of the evidence presented, the Committee made the
following observations: (a) NIA officials/employees concerned
circumvented the bidding requirement of EO 301 by falsely representing
in various purchase orders (POs) that the suppliers/dealers of the
items sold to NIA are the exclusive dealers/distributors thereof or
that the articles are being purchased from exclusive suppliers; and (b)
Firms, 1.e., BLIMS and CLMC, which acted as mere middlemen, were made
to appear as exclusive distributors when in fact there is "Longyear
Philippine Drilling Products, Inc." at Malugay Street, Makati, Metro
Manila, from which came the "Longyear" products sold to NIA by BLIMS.
Likewise, CLMC does not appear to be the exclusive distributor in the
Philippines of "Diamant Boart Societe Annonyme" of Belgium because
there is a "Diamant Boart Philippines Inc." from which CLMC procured
the drill bits, parts and accessories of "Diamant Boart" brand which it
sold to the NIA. As regards TMI, which claimed to be the exclusive
distributor of "TONE" drilling machine and spare parts, there is no
showing that its exclusive distributorship was still existing at the
time the questioned purchases of "TONE" spare parts and accessories
were effected. Undoubtedly, therefore, BLIMS and CLMC merely acted as
middlemen to increase the prices paid by NIA.
The Committee likewise found that COA Circular No. 76-41, dated July
30, 1976, in relation to COA Circular No. 86-257, dated March 3, 1986,
prohibiting splitting of vouchers, orders/payments has also been
violated in connection with the aforesaid transactions. The Committee
predicated its finding on the investigation of the NBI and the
testimony of Ms. Nelia Villeza of COA. As related by Ms. Villeza, the
splitting of POs was evidenced by not too wide intervals in dates and
numbers of POs approved by the same officers and served to the same
suppliers as shown by: 29 POs approved either by respondent Rojas or
then NIA Administrator Alday, processed for Laur CIP from January to
May, 1988, with the POs being served to only three (3) suppliers: CLMC,
BLIMS, and TMI (Exh. "MM-17A-COA"). Splitting of payments, on the other
hand, was evidenced by the issuance of three checks in payment of one
disbursement voucher/PO, evidently to make the checks fall within the
ceiling of the signing authority of respondent Zenaida Sebastian.
COA Circular No. 85-55-A, dated September 8, 1985, prohibiting
unnecessary, irregular, excessive, and extravagant expenditure of
public funds was likewise violated in the questioned transactions, it
appearing that of a total of 901 units of materials acquired (at a
total cost of P17,758,873) only 17 units (at a total cost of
P304,540.00) were actually utilized. In fact, and as testified to by
NBI agent Rizalde Laudencia, about P9,652,693.47 worth of "Longyear"
drill parts and accessories had never been used because, as per the
affidavit of Cesar L. Orpilla, NIA Senior Geologist, the "Longyear"
rig, though mobilized, was not actually put in operation. To compound
matters, Ms. Nelia Villeza testified that bits/parts/accessories
intended for Laur CIP were acquired after completion of the project and
the supporting RIVs therefore were prepared towards such
completion.
The Committee's findings that (a) the twenty-nine (29) purchases were
done in violation of EO 301, entered as they were thru negotiation when
circumstances surrounding each transaction called for public bidding;
(b) the same purchases were attended with splitting of orders, vouchers
and/or payments in violation of COA Circular No. 76-41; and (c) that
said purchases were done in contravention of the injunction embodied in
COA No. 85-55-A, series of 1985, merit approval. Indeed, judging from
the supporting documents of the twenty-nine (29) negotiated purchases,
the requirement of public bidding was deliberately dispensed with
through the convenience of making it appear in said documents that the
items being purchased are available only from alleged exclusive
distributor or manufacturer thereof. This was done by describing each
item as "unique" and specifying the particular brand, precisely to fit
the exception to public bidding under Sec. 1 (c) of E.O. 301, which
reads:
"Section 1.
"(c) Whenever the materials are sold by an exclusive distributor or
manufacturer who does not have sub-dealers selling at lower prices and
for which no suitable substitute can be obtained elsewhere at more
advantageous terms to the government."
It is no wonder then that only three (3) firms, namely, BLIMS, CLMC and
TMI were able to corner the entire twenty-nine (29) negotiated
purchases.
Given the above perspective, the issue as regards herein respondents is
whether they could be held liable in the light of their individual
participation/s in the twenty-nine (29) anomalous transactions. The
Investigation Committee resolved the issue in the affirmative.
Respondent Rojas claimed that his role consisted merely in the signing
of prepared purchase orders, requests for quotations and disbursement
vouchers which is routine and normal to him. He added that he was not a
party in the preparation of RIVs or, in the processing and
countersigning of checks.
Respondent Julian, on the other hand, alleged that he merely approved
or recommended for approval the different RIVs which were already
prepared and signed by the requisitioner/end-user when presented to
him. He disclaimed any participation in the initiation/preparation of
said RIVs as said function pertains to the requisitioner/end-user of
the needed items and that he merely relied on the descriptions of the
requisitioner/end-user as appearing in the RIVs.
For her part, respondent Sebastian contended that she could not be held
liable because she merely countersigned the corresponding checks for
each purchase. Like Julian, she contended that she had no involvement
whatsoever in the procurement process, such as the preparation/approval
of RIVs and POs, and therefore she should not be held responsible for
any misdescription of the purchased items because the supporting papers
came to her duly approved by the other authorities concerned.
Respondent's posture in defense impresses me as unconvincing. For, as
correctly observed by the Committee to which I fully agree:
"We do not believe that respondents were not aware that certain
irregularities had been committed relative to the twenty-nine (29)
transactions involved in the Laur CIP, and, therefore, they should be
excluded from any culpability arising therefrom, just because the
documents in question were initiated, prepared and processed at the
lower level of the NIA administrative hierarchy.
"On the contrary, in view of the big amounts involved (numbering to
hundreds of thousands of pesos per RIV or PO or DV) and the great
number of materials being purchased for a particular project,
respondents should not have just relied on the papers and documents
submitted to them by their subordinates for their favorable
indorsement, approval and/or signature. As officials occupying high and
sensitive positions in the NIA administrative hierarchy, next only to
the Administrator in importance and influence, they should have been
more vigilant in checking and verifying each and every requisition and
issue voucher (RIV), purchase order (PO), disbursement voucher (DV),
and check which passed through them for approval and/or signature, as
well as their supporting papers, to find out if such documents and
transactions covered therein were lawful and in order. The fact that
there were several RIVs, POs, DVs, and checks bearing similar and/or
proximate dates, and the payments were made to only three (3) favored
companies, should have been enough reason for them to undertake a
closed review of the same. Precisely, they were placed in said
positions to be zealous in protecting the public funds which have been
put at their disposal so they will be properly administered and
utilized in the purchase of equipment, materials and spare parts needed
by their office and their projects. They are there to protect the
interest and welfare of the people and of the nation by closely
monitoring the procurement and purchasing activities of their
office.
"That they failed to do so, and allowed the irregularities to be
committed, by approving and affixing their signatures on the documents
in question, showed that they were remiss in their duties and
responsibilities both under the law and the Constitution. . . . "
For sure, had any of the respondents been as vigilant as their
positions so require they could have discovered that the so called
exclusive distributors were not what they were depicted to be. Such
discovery would have led to the procurement of drill
bits/parts/accessories thru public bidding and thereby enable NIA to
obtain the best price in the market. The bare fact that the same
favored suppliers appear on all these supporting purchase documents
should have alerted respondents on the possibility of
irregularities.
As it were, there is no concrete evidence proving or tending to prove
that the doctored documents submitted in support of the twenty-nine
(29) anomalous purchases came to be at the instance or initiative of
respondents or that they conspired with their subordinates in the
preparation thereof. Nonetheless, respondents stand culpable for not
exercising that degree of vigilance, that level of caution expected
from ranking executive officers of which they are. By ordinary
standards, the omission constitutes gross negligence and/or
inefficiency in the performance of official duties. Such omission
translates into a tremendous financial waste of government funds and
property.
I am not insensitive to the Committee's observation that all the
respondents herein "rose from the ranks, having served the (National
Irrigation) Administration for more than twenty-two years", and that
the instant case "is their first administrative offense." Let it be
made clear, however, that service in the government, no matter how
long, has not been and can never be a passport for official malfeasance
or misfeasance. On the contrary, greater care and vigilance in the
performance of official duties and responsibilities ought to be
expected of those with long years in the public service if they are to
preserve the honor and dignity due them by their unblemished record
should they eventually leave the portals of the government. Neither can
I view respondents' case with leniency on the score that this is their
first administrative offense. Perhaps, alongside with their length of
service, there is an occasion for such a compassion if the matter at
hand concerns a single isolated transaction of few hundred pesos. But
such is not the case. Here, no less than twenty-nine (29) transactions
amounting in the aggregate to several millions of pesos —
P17,758,873.72 to be precise — were involved, each of which was
attended by massive irregularities. In a very real sense, therefore,
the government was cheated twenty-nine (29) times, all because the
herein respondents failed to live up to that exacting requirement of
care and caution inherent in their respective positions which are no
less next only in importance, prestige, powers, duties and
responsibilities to the head of the agency itself.
WHEREFORE, and as recommended by the Department of Justice, through the
Ad Hoc Investigating Committee, respondents DAVID T. ROJAS, SEBASTIAN
I. JULIAN, and ZENAIDA C. SEBASTIAN, all Assistant Administrators of
the National Irrigation Administration (NIA), are hereby DISMISSED from
the service with all its accessory penalties.
Done in the City of Manila,
this 27th day of February in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and
ninety.
chanrobles virtual law library
Back
to Main
Since 19.07.98.