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.
Search for
www.chanrobles.com:
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ PHILIPPINE LAWS, STATUTES & CODES
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 20 -
IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE ON JAIME M. GELLOR,
PRESIDENT, CENTRAL MINDANAO UNIVERSITY
This is an administrative complaint filed
against Dr. Jaime M. Gellor, President, Central Mindanao University
(CMU), Musuan, Bukidnon, and Engr. Liberato Balandra, Vice Chairman,
Pre-qualification Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC) and Head of the
Engineering Technical Committee, CMU, for alleged violation of Sec. 3 (e) and (g) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, as amended, otherwise
known as the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act".
The case arose out of the letter-complaint of Dr. Medino A. Yebron et
al., dated November 24, 1994, initially filed with this Office,
imputing on respondents acts constituting graft and corrupt practices
in connection with various infrastructure projects inside the CMU
campus. On January 19, 1995, this Office referred the letter-complaint
to the Presidential Commission against Graft and Corruption (PCAGC) for
appropriate action. Finding sufficient cause for an administrative,
investigation the PCAGC, in an order of February 13, 1995, required
respondents to file their respective counter-affidavits.
The factual milieu as recited by the PCAGC in its report, styled
"RESOLUTION", dated March 20, 1998, is as follows:
"On
February 13, 1995, finding sufficient basis for an administrative
investigation, this Commission issued an order requiring respondents
to: (a) file 'their respective counter-affidavits . . . within a
non-extendible period of five (5) days from receipt thereof; and (b)
submit their respective Statements [of] Assets and Liabilities for the
last three (3) years (1992, 1993 and 1994) . . .
"Other cases were earlier filed
with the Presidential Anti-Crime Commission (PACC), with the Office of
the Ombudsman (Mindanao), and with the Regional Trial Court, all
charging respondent Gellor for violation of Republic Act 3019, as
amended, . . . .
"The respondents filed their
'Joint Counter-Affidavit' dated March 15, 1995 denying the charge of
illegally awarding the contract for the improvement of the campus roads
stating, among other things that; respondents believed in good faith
that the award to FGW was in accordance with Presidential Decree 1594
because FGW had an on going project inside the Central Mindanao
University (CMU) campus, the Vet-Med Building (Animal Disease
Diagnostic Laboratory); FGW did not incur any negative slippage; the
costing and estimates in the concreting of the campus road projects;
the ETPS estimate for the new project was P616,604.00, whereas, the
negotiated contract cost CMU P600,000.00 only; and the complainants are
disgruntled, dissatisfied professors or personnel of CMU'.
"The complainants, refuting the
counter-affidavit, claim that: (a) respondents failed to mention that
in response to the Invitation to Bid, twelve (12) contractors from
Bukidnon and Misamis Oriental had already met with the PBAC in
accordance with the schedule as mentioned in the invitation, and
submitted thereby their pre-qualification documents and all were
declared pre qualified; (b) the concreting was done at nighttime
without the use of any compacting equipment, and without the presence
of an inspector or auditor; (d) respondent Gellor abolished the
Technical Committee and appointed respondent Balandra to inspect the
projects for compliance with plans and specifications; (e) contrary to
allegations of the counter-affidavit, FGW Construction, was blacklisted
by the previous CMU administration; (f) the Veterinary Diagnostics
Building could not be checked for compliance because there were no
'plans and specifications' and for that reason the Dean of the College
refused to accept the building; (g) that the road concreting project
was not adjacent to or contiguous with Veterinary Diagnostic Building;
and (h) it was not true that the complaints were disgruntled CMU
Officials and 'have an axe to grind against' respondents.
"Complainant Yebron for himself
and the other complainants filed supplemental charges against
respondents styled Manifestation' dated April 19, 1995, enumerating
therein all the other charges including those already filed with the
Office of the Ombudsman (Mindanao) and with the Presidential Anti-Crime
Commission (PACC).
"On
June 2, 1995, this Commission received a pleading denominated
'Counter-Reply and Motion to Dismiss' dated June 1, 1995, alleging,
among other things, that the complaint be dismissed on the following
grounds: (a) that the Reply filed by complainants were mere
're-instatements of the allegations of their Joint Affidavit filed with
the other investigating agencies of the government, and (b) that the
negotiated contracts had already been passed in audit by the Office of
the Regional Director, Commission on Audit (COA) under the Contract
Review Report dated February 27, 1995.
"On June 5, 1995, the said
'Counter-Reply and Motion to Dismiss' was denied.
"On June 6, 1995, finding
sufficient basis to conduct administrative investigation of the
supplemental charges, respondents Gellor and Balandra were required to
file their respective counter- affidavits.
"On June 22, 1995, respondents
filed motion for reconsideration of the order of this Commission dated
June 5, 1995 denying the motion to dismiss; and before the Commission
could rule on the motion for reconsideration, on the same day of June
22, 1995, 'Motion to Set Aside Order and to Dismiss Supplemental
Charges' dated June 21, 1995 was filed by respondents.
"On June 26, 1995, this
Commission denied for lack of merit, both the said motion for
reconsideration and the motion to dismiss.
"Because of the repeated refusal
of respondents to file their answer, complainants presented their
evidence and on August 3, 1995, filed their 'Formal Offer of Exhibits
and Evidence' dated July 24, 1995.
"On
August 4, 1995, respondents filed their 'Answer to Supplemental Charges.
"Despite the opposition of
complainants for the admission of the 'Answer to Supplemental Charges
the same was admitted and respondents were allowed to present
testimonial evidence.
"Successive motions to dismiss
and motions for reconsideration on idential (sic) grounds were
repeatedly filed by respondents All of them were denied for lack of
merit.
"On January 3, 1996, this
Commission resolving the respondents' Motion to Dismiss the
Supplemental Complaint ordered the dismissal of all the charges except
the following: (a) Concreting the 250- meter campus road for
P630,500.00; (b) Construction of Student Ladies' Dormitory for
P2,683,021.69; (c) Construction of Student Center for P1,795,000.00;
(d) Construction of Veterinary Med. Building Phase I for P2,498,349.04;
(e) Construction of Veterinary Med. Building Phase IIb for
P1,080,258.25; (f) Construction of the Veterinary Med. Building Phase
III for P998,075.00; and (g) Construction of Veterinary Med. Building
Phase III for P324,718.91, all through negotiated contracts."
Against the foregoing backdrop, the PCAGC recommended the dismissal of the complaint against respondent Liberato Balandra on jurisdictional ground, the latter not being a presidential appointee. On the other hand the PCAGC upon the following basic set of facts, principal issues and the differing positions assumed by the parties, to wit:
"In
brief, the indisputable facts involved are as follows: (a) that an
invitation to pre-qualify and bid was published by the [CMU] with the
Daily Post; (b) that twelve (12) construction firms responded to the
invitation submitting thereby pre-qualifications documents/papers; and
(c) that the infrastructure projects were instead awarded by negotiated
contracts
The complainants claimed that
awarding the projects to FGW by negotiated contracts and not through
public bidding as earlier announced was contrary to law.
On the other hand the
respondents claimed that resort to negotiated contracts as a mode of
awarding the projects to FGW was in consonance with Presidential Decree
No. 1594.
Clearly, therefore, the only
issues to be resolved . . . are: (a) Whether or not the award of the
above-mentioned infrastructure projects of the . . . (CMU) in favor of
FGW Construction was in accordance with law; and (b) Whether or not the
respondents were guilty of violating Sec 3 (e) of [R A] 3019, as
amended, . . ."
Recommended that respondent Jaime C. Gellor, be found guilty as charged, on the strength of the following observations and premises:
"Respondents'
claim for the legitimacy of entering into negotiated contracts in the
construction of the infrastructure projects on the university hinges on
the following: (1) that the contractor FGW Construction had an on-going
construction contract with the university contiguous to the new
projects; (b) that the cost is lower than the agency cost estimate; (c)
that the contractor had no negative slippage; and (d) that
representatives of the Commission on Audit who prepared the Contract
Review Report found the construction projects to be in order or
'reasonable'.
"Complainants'
evidence, however, showed: (a) that the actual cost of the concreting
of the 250-meter campus road was P630,500.00 and not P600,000.00 as
claimed by the respondents; (b) that the representatives of COA visited
the projects only once and failed to verify if the materials used were
as specified in the plans and specifications; (c) that FGW Construction
had been 'blacklisted' by the previous university administration; (d)
that the Technical Committee whose function was to inspect compliance
of contractors with the plans and specifications of infrastructure
projects was abolished by respondent Gellor and appointed in its place
Balandra; and (e) that Balandra was installed as a one-man team to
perform all of the following: prepare plans and specifications of
infrastructure projects of the university, approve agency estimates,
Chairman of the PBAC, negotiate, inspect constructions, and recommend
payments, etc.
"Having chosen 'negotiated
contract' as the mode to pursue the infrastructure projects of the
university to a favored contractor, FGW Construction totally ignoring
the publication of the notice to pre-qualify and bid and the fact that
12 contractors responded to the said notice, respondent Gellor
President of the Central Mindanao University (CMU) entered into
contracts on behalf of the government manifestly and grossly
disadvantageous to the university (Sec 3 (g) of Republic Act 3019 as
amended) and giving a private entity 'unwarranted benefits advantage or
preference in the discharge of his official, administrative . . .
functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence' (Sec 3 (e) of Republic Act 3019, as amended).
"Going back to the Order of
February 13, 1995, giving due course to the letter-complaint, this
Commission required respondents to file their respective Statements of
Assets and Liabilities for the last three years 1992, 1993 and 1994.
"An examination of the said
statements disclosed that respondent Gellor had an 'excessive Cash on
Hand and in Banks'; for 1992 — P1.2 million; 1993 — P1.6 million; 1994
— P1.8 million, and an almost equivalent amount of loans.
"Respondent Gellor explained
that he had the actual capacity to acquire such amount considering his
financial stature and his sources of income' enumerating for this
Commission all his properties, both acquired and inherited. He claimed
that in declaring his cash position he should be appreciated because of
his honesty.
"In
like manner, respondent Gellor was also required to explain his loans
and for the purpose, he filed with this Commission, the following:
Annex "A"
Annex "D"
Annex "D-1"
Annex "D-2"
'A closer scrutiny of the
papers/documents submitted by respondent Gellor indicates that the same
were falsifications. The papers on which the documents were printed
were new not of the 1992 vintage papers, which should be yellowish at
this point in time (six years, hence).
"Understandably, in his
eagerness to explain his excessive wealth, beyond his capacity to earn,
and to extricate himself from apparent inconsistencies, he resorted to
a graver offense — falsification of public and/or commercial documents
defined and penalized by the: Revised Penal Code " (Emphasis added)
The findings and conclusions of the PCAGC, supported as they are by, or at least reasonably inferable from, substantive evidence on record commend themselves for concurrence.
But by way of observation, I am at a loss to understand why one has to resort as respondents did, to negotiation when a score of bidders have responded to a published notice to pre-qualify and bid for the projects in question. Save perhaps in furtherance of a scheme to accommodate a favored contractor — the FGW Construction, in this case — most likely for valuable consideration, respondent Gellor's action of choosing negotiation over bidding as a mode of contract award admits of no other logical explanation. And given that Gellor had not satisfactorily explained what the PCAGC termed as his "excessive Cash on Hand and in Bank" reflected in his 1992, 1993 and 1994 Statement of Assets and Liabilities, it may not be farfetched to state that his excess cash was obtained thru means less than honest.
Heads of institutions of learning, like respondent Gellor, are supposed to be models of honesty and uprightness, they being shapers of young minds and molders of characters. But far from setting right examples, respondent Gellor did, under the premises, the exact opposite. And with the view I take of the situation, respondent Gellor's dishonest acts subject of this case is not an isolated incident, what with the documented fact that he is facing in other fora charges for violation of the Anti-Graft Law. Needless to state, he is undeserving to remain in the service.
FOR ALL THE FOREGOING, Jaime M. Gellor is hereby found guilty as charged. Accordingly, and as recommended by the PCAGC, he is hereby DISMISSED from the service, with an the accessory penalties attached to the penalty of dismissal, effective upon his receipt of this order.
For reasons stated in the report of the PCAGC, the case against Liberato Balandra is hereby DISMISSED, without prejudice, however, to the refilling of the same case to the appropriate body.
Done in the City of Manila, this 23rd day of September, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and ninety eight.
chan robles virtual law library
Back to Main
Since 19.07.98.
