Leo Bernardez, Jr. vs. The City Government of Baguio, et.al., G.R. No. 197559, March 21, 2022

 

Leo Bernardez, Jr. vs. The City Government of Baguio, et.al., 

G.R. No. 197559, March 21, 2022

 

Facts:

1.     The Sangguniang Panglungsod of the City Government of Baguio enacted Ordinance No. 01, series of 2004 for the appropriation of available funds for the purpose of reorganization or restructuring of its local departments.

2.     Pursuant to Ordinance No. 01, the city mayor of Baguio, Yaranon, issued Administrative Order No. 171, Series of 2004 otherwise known as "An Administrative Order Designating Engineer Oscar V. Flores, City Government Department Head II, City Government of Baguio, as Acting Building Official of the City of Baguio Pending his Appointment of Building Official of the City of Baguio."

3.     Petitioner, being the City Engineer at that time, a complaint for declaration of nullity of AO No. 171, Series of 2004.

4.     It is claimed that the functions adverted to in AO No. 171 usurped and divested [petitioner] of his functions as City Engineer. 

5.     Following the issuance and implementation of AO 171, Flores was later appointed as Department Head of the City Buildings and Architecture Office (CBAO).

 

Issues:

·      Whether or not the case is now moot and academic.

·      Whether or not the ordinance can be collaterally attacked

·      Whether or not AO 171 is valid.

 

You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:    RPC Book 1 by Reyes Codal Set Statutory Construction Introduction to Law Criminal Procedure Law On Property Human Rights Education Civil Law Reviewer Constitutional Law

Ruling:

 

FIRST ISSUE

 

Yes. The Supreme Court held that "a case becomes moot and academic when, by virtue of supervening events, there is no more actual controversy between the parties and no useful purpose can be served in passing upon the merits. Since they are constituted to pass upon substantial rights, courts of justice will not consider questions where no actual interests are involved. As a rule, courts decline jurisdiction over such cases or dismiss them on the ground of mootness."

 

With the appointment of Flores as Department Head of CBAO, this Court finds that the issues raised by petitioner in the instant complaint - whether AO 171, and the designation of Flores as acting Building Official by the DPWH pursuant to AO 171, are valid or null and void - have become moot. It would be futile for the Court to pass upon the validity or invalidity of AO 171, which, as it stands, is no longer operative.

 

SECOND ISSUE

 

Petitioner, in his complaint filed with the RTC, implicitly questioned the impropriety of Ordinance No. 01 (from which AO 171 emanated) by asserting that the said ordinance, while an appropriation measure, contains non-appropriation items such as the reorganization and restructuring of the local departments under the City of Baguio, and the creation of the CBAO.

 

The Supreme Court held that the validity of laws, orders, or such other rules with the force of law cannot be attacked collaterally. This is because there is a legal presumption of validity of these laws. Accordingly, the legal presumption of Ordinance No. 0l's validity stands unless the same is annulled in a direct proceeding.

 

THIRD ISSUE

 

The Supreme Court held that while Section 477 of the LGC states that the City Engineer shall also act as the Building Official, the appointment of a separate Building Official, vis-a-vis the creation of the CBAO in this case, is not without legal basis.

 

The LGC itself empowers City Governments to implement an organizational structure and create staffing patterns for the effective management and administration of their respective offices. Along the same lines, the LGC also empowers the Sanguniang Panlungsod to create, through local ordinances, other offices or consolidate the functions of any office with those of another in the interest of efficiency and economy. In relation to the foregoing, the appointment of a Building Official separate and distinct from a City Engineer is supported by law pursuant to the IRR of the National Building Code.

 

It is thus within the legislative discretion of the City Government of Baguio to create the CBAO, with all the powers and duties of the Building Official, in line with its purpose of facilitating a more effective delivery of public service.

You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:    RPC Book 1 by Reyes Codal Set Statutory Construction Introduction to Law Criminal Procedure Law On Property Human Rights Education Civil Law Reviewer Constitutional Law

Herold G. Ubalde vs. Hon. Conchita C. Morales, in her capacity as the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 216771, March 28, 2022

 

Herold G. Ubalde vs. Hon. Conchita C. Morales, in her capacity as the Ombudsman, 

G.R. No. 216771, March 28, 2022

 

Facts:

1.     The PNP, in relation to the 1st phase of its modernization program, included in its 2008 Annual Procurement Plan the purchase of 3 light police helicopters (LPOHs).

2.     At the time material to the case, Ubalde became a regular member of the PNP National Headquarters Bids and Awards Committee (NHQ-BAC).

3.     Subsequently, after several amendments, the NAPOLCOM issued Resolution which prescribed the minimum standard technical specifications of the LPOHs.

4.     After two failed public biddings based on the prescribed specifications, the NHQ-BAC recommended that the procurement of the helicopters be made through negotiation pursuant to Section 53(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations-A (IRR-A) of R.A. No. 9184.

5.     The PNP Negotiation Committee met with Manila Aerospace Products Trading (MAPTRA) Sole Proprietorship, which proposed to deliver 1 fully-equipped and 2 standard helicopters, and BEELINE, which proposed the delivery of 2 standard helicopters.

6.     Considering that the proposals did not meet PNP's minimum requirement of 3 equipped LPOHs, the negotiated procurement was declared a failure.

7.     The successive failure in the biddings prompted SAF Director Santiago, Jr. to issue a Memorandum, requesting the procurement of at least 1 equipped LPOH and 2 standard LPOHs, instead of the original 3 equipped LPOHs.

8.     The request was favorably indorsed by PDIR Tieman to the NHQ-BAC, which in turn, issued BAC Resolution recommending the purchase of the same.

9.     Then a negotiation conference was held. MAPTRA Sole Proprietorship participated in the negotiations and proposed to deliver one (1) fully-equipped LPOH and two (2) standard LPOHs. The proposal was accepted by the Negotiation Committee, which stated in its Resolution that the LPOHs were consistent with the NAPOLCOM specifications.

10.  The NHQ-BAC issued Resolution, which affirmed the Negotiation Committee's recommendation to recommend to the PNP Chief the award of the supply contract to MAPTRA Sole Proprietorship. 

11.  As a result, the PNP and MAPTRA Corporation entered into a Supply Contract. MAPTRA Corporation obligated itself to deliver to the PNP brand new units. 

12.  Consequently, Versoza issued Purchase Order, ordering MAPTRA Sole Proprietorship to deliver the three (3) LPOHs to the PNP.

13.  After the delivery of the LPOHs, the Weapons Tactics and Communications Division (WTCD) of the Directorate for Research and Development of the PNP was tasked to inspect and examine the two (2) delivered units to see if they conformed to the PNP's specifications.

14.  The WTCD noted that the delivered units were not air-conditioned, contrary to what was prescribed by the NAPOLCOM. It remarked that the ventilating system of the delivered units were that of a standard helicopter.

15.  Subsequently, the PNP Inspection and Acceptance Committee issued a Resolution stating that the delivered units conformed with the NAPOLCOM specifications and passed the criteria indicated in WTCD Report. Consequently, the PNP paid MAPTRA Corporation.

 

Issues:

·      Whether or not the negotiated procurement is valid

·      Whether or not Ubalde is administratively liable for serious dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service.

 

You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:    RPC Book 1 by Reyes Codal Set Statutory Construction Introduction to Law Criminal Procedure Law On Property Human Rights Education Civil Law Reviewer Constitutional Law

Ruling:

 

FIRST ISSUE

 

Negotiated procurement is a method of procurement of goods, mfrastructure projects, and consulting services, whereby the procuring entity directly negotiates a contract with a technically, legally, and financially capable supplier in highly exceptional cases. Under Section 53(b) of IRR-A, negotiated procurement may be resorted to in cases where immediate action is necessary to prevent damage to or loss of life or property. The procurement of the LPOHs falls under this category since as explained by SAF Director Santiago, Jr., the lack of air support in their operations in Sulu are putting the lives of their troops at risk.

 

SECOND ISSUE

 

The Supreme Court is convinced that there is substantial evidence to hold Ubalde administratively liable for his acts relating to the purchase of the LPOHs by the PNP.

 

Both the Ombudsman and the CA found that Ubalde, as a member of the NHQ-BAC, approved the recommendation of the Negotiation Committee to award the contract to procure the LPOHs to MAPTRA Sole Proprietorship despite a clear showing that the latter is not a technically, legally, and financially capable supplier.

 

The Court finds that MAPTRA Sole Proprietorship/Corporation is not a technically, legally, and financially capable supplier nor a previous supplier of good standing based on the following undisputed facts found by the Ombudsman:

1.     The party to the Supply Contract, however, was eventually MAPTRA Corporation, which was issued a Certificate of Incorporation only on June 10, 2009. There is no evidence that MAPTRA Corporation is authorized to engage in the sale of helicopters.

2.     MAPTRA Sole Proprietorship's single largest contract similar to the purchase of the LPOHs is the sale of one (1) Rotary Wing Trainer Aircraft to the Philippine Navy. There is also no showing that MAPTRA Sole Proprietorship had previously supplied helicopters to the PNP, which to be sure, is a separate and distinct entity from the Philippine Navy.

3.     As early as the negotiation stage, there were indications that MAPTRA Sole Proprietorship could not deliver the LPOHs compliant with the specifications required by the NAPOLCOM.

4.     In the two years preceding the award of the contract, MAPTRA Sole Proprietorship had a negative net worth.

 

In affirming the recommendation of the Negotiation Committee to award the contract to MAPTRA Sole Proprietorship despite a showing that it is not a technically, legally, and financially capable supplier, Ubalde reneged on his obligation as a member of the NHQ-BAC to ensure that standards and criteria laid down by law for negotiated procurement are complied with by the prospective supplier.

You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:    RPC Book 1 by Reyes Codal Set Statutory Construction Introduction to Law Criminal Procedure Law On Property Human Rights Education Civil Law Reviewer Constitutional Law