TodayisThursday,March02,2017

Custom Search

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT

FIRSTDIVISION

G.R.No.152188.July8,2005

FLORENTINOR.*BRUCALandCESARA.CRUZ,Petitioners,
vs.
HON.ANIANOA.DESIERTO,Ombudsman,HON.SIMEONA.DATUMANONG,SecretaryoftheDepartmentof
PublicWorksandHighways,andTHECOURTOFAPPEALS,Respondents.

DECISION

QUISUMBING,J.:

ThisPetitionforReviewonCertiorariwithaprayerfortheissuanceofaTemporaryRestrainingOrderandWritof
Preliminary Injunction seeks the reversal of the Court of Appeals Decision,1 dated June 22, 2001, and its
Resolution,2 dated November 20, 2001, in CAG.R. SP No. 53512. The Court of Appeals affirmed the
OmbudsmansResolution3inOMBADM0930173,datedAugust4,1998,dismissinghereinpetitionersFlorentino
R. Brucal and Cesar A. Cruz for dishonesty and gross neglect of duty with respect to the irregularities which
allegedlyattendedtheconstructionofthebarangayhighschoolbuildinginInaclagan,Gumaca,Quezon.4

Thefactsareasfollows:

Petitioners Florentino R. Brucal and Cesar A. Cruz were members of the Second Engineering District
Prequalification,BidsandAwardsCommittee(PBAC)oftheDepartmentofPublicWorksandHighways(DPWH).5
BrucalwastheprojectengineerwhileCruzwasthechiefoftheconstructionsectionoftheInaclaganBarangayHigh
SchoolProject.

PetitionerswereamongtherespondentsintheAdministrativeComplaint,6docketedasOMBADM0930173,filed
onNovember18,1992,bytheOMBTaskForceonPublicWorksandHighwaysfollowinganinvestigationonthe
complaint of the spouses Narciso and Heidi Pita of Manex Construction and Supplies. They were charged with
Dishonesty, Falsification of Official Documents, Grave Misconduct, Violation of Office Rules and Regulations, and
ConductPrejudicialtotheBestInterestoftheService7forirregularitiesinconnectionwiththebidding,award,and
implementationofcontractsintheprovinceofQuezon.8

Initsinvestigation,theOMBTaskForcefoundthatonFebruary5,1990,aconstructionprojectworthP281,475.30
for a threeclassroom building at the Inaclagan Barangay High School, Gumaca, Quezon, was awarded by the
PBACtocontractorRAMBuilders.9However,duringitsconstruction,RAMBuildersallegedlycommittedsubstantial
deviationsfromtheapprovedplansandspecificationsoftheDPWH.10Anoversightcommittee11reportedthatRAM
Buildersusedcommercial,substandardsizesteelbarsinsteadofstandardsizesteelbars.12

RAMBuilderswaspermittedtoresumeconstruction,butitwasrequiredtomakeadditionalreinforcementstoattain
the strength required for the foundation. Instead of having four pieces of steel bars for every column post using
standard size, six pieces of steel bars were required. Pouring of mix concrete in the existing foundation and the
replacementofthepoorlumberusedwerealsorequired.13

In its claim for payment, RAM Builders requested inspection and verification of the project. A Statement of Work
Accomplished,14 dated April 4, 1990, was prepared containing the following certifications: (1) As contractor, RAM
Builderscertifiedthattheamountstatedwerecorrectandthematerialsusedintheprojectwerepaid(2)Aschiefof
theconstructionsection,petitionerCruzcertifiedthatallworkitemshavebeenaccomplishedinaccordancewiththe
approvedplans,specificationandprogramofwork(3)Aschiefoftheresearchandstandardsection,Engr.Gerardo
A. Razo certified that the materials used in the project have been tested and have passed all requirements.15
Likewise,petitionerBrucalsigned(1)therequestforinspectionandverification(2)thecertificationdatedApril4,
1990, to the effect that he had witnessed the payment of salaries and suppliers in connection with the Inaclagan
project,thatnoclaimforunpaidmaterialshadbeenfiledbylocalsuppliersagainstRAMBuilders,andthattheyhad
been paid and (3) the certificate of clearance for equipment rental and other obligations which allowed RAM
Builders to claim payment.16 Brucal also submitted and signed the Statement of Time Elapsed of Work
Accomplished.17

However,theOMBTaskForceconcludedafteritsinvestigationthat,

[T]here were major defects in the construction of the school building as a direct result of the contractors
impropermethodsanditsuseofsubstandardmaterials(reinforcementsteelbarsandlumber).Allthese,ifleft
unchecked,wouldhaveresultedintheconstructionofaschoolbuildingwhichwasfarweakerinstrengththanthat
envisionedbytheplanners.Consideringthedegreeofdeviationfromtheapprovedplansandspecifications,itcould
rightfullybeconcludedthatthesamehadbeendeliberate.Itmustbeaddedthattherecouldbenotruthtotheclaim
thatthecontractorsemployeehadnotaffordedproperattentiontothematerialsdeliveredfortheprojectbecause
RAMBuildersisalsoadealer/supplierofconstructionmaterials.Fromavailablerecords,RAMBuildershasbeena
regularsupplierofconstructionmaterialsforprojectsimplementedbytheDPWHdistrictofficeinLucenaCity.Inall
probability,theundersizereinforcementsteelbarsandpoorqualitylumberthatwereusedintheInaclaganschool
buildingprojecthadbeensuppliedbyRAMbuildersitselfsuchthatevenbeforethedeliveryofsaidarticlestothe
job site, the contractor (which was at the same time the supplier) already knew that they were not in accordance
with the approved plans and specifications. Moreover, it must be presumed that the contractors employees
including its project engineer are knowledgeable about construction materials and methods used in the
implementationofpublicworksprojects.Thisbeingthecase,therecouldnothavebeenanhonestmistakeinregard
totheimpropermethodsutilizedandthesubstandardqualityofthebasicmaterialsused.Underthecircumstances,
thecontractorshouldhavebeencompelledtoundowhathehadunlawfullydonebyorderingthedemolitionofwhat
had been constructed so far to ensure strict compliance with the approved plans and specification.18 [Emphasis
supplied.]

...

In a Resolution, dated August 4, 1998, the Administrative Adjudication Bureau of the OMB through Graft
InvestigationOfficerII(GIO)JoselitoP.Fangonfoundthepetitionersadministrativelyliablefordishonestyandgross
neglect of duty. He recommended the dismissal of the petitioners with forfeiture of leave credits and retirement
benefitsanddisqualificationforreemploymentinthegovernmentservice,towit:

II

As to the charge of Falsification and/or Dishonesty, respondents were denounced for making it appear that the
constructionofthethree(3)classroombuildingsattheInaclaganBarangayHighSchoolwasinaccordancewiththe
plansandspecifications,whenintruththereweresubstantialdeviationsintermsofmaterials,qualityofworkand
constructionmethods.

The improper construction and use of substandard materials [were] established by the end user particularly the
Principal of Inaclagan High School, Mrs. AUREA D. QUISTO, after having made inquiries as to the materials
delivered and the method of construction (p.0375, records). Moreover, it appears that the fact of improper
construction and use of substandard materials by the contractor was affirmed by the DPWH Regional Director
ALFREDOP.TORRES,asevidencedbyhisletterdated26September1990(p.0318,records)addressedtothe
DPWHDistrictEngineer,Quezon2ndEngineeringDistrict.

Thus, on the basis of the foregoing, it is apparent that substantial evidence exist to hold the following
respondentsadministrativelyliableforDishonesty,viz:

a. CESAR A. CRUZ, Chief, Construction Section who by reason of his duties was bound to ensure that the
contractorcompliedwiththepropermethodofconstruction,asevidencedbythefactthathesignedthestatementof
work accomplished. Thus, his act of signing the same, despite the fact that the proper methods of
construction[were]notcompliedwith,amountstodishonesty.

b. FLORENTINO R. BRUCAL, Engineer III, who was duty bound to ensure that the contractor complies with the
approvedplansandspecifications.Hence,hisactofsigningthestatementoftimeelapsedandstatementof
work accomplished constitutes fraud and dishonesty visvis the contractors obligation relative to the
plansandspecifications.

...

III

Respondents have been charged with complicity in the irregular construction of three (3) classroom buildings at
Inaclagan Barangay High School. It was alleged that the contractor used substandard materials and employed
improper construction methods in the construction of the Barangay High School Building in Inaclagan Gumaca,
Quezon.

Itappears that with regardtotheprojectinquestion,respondentPANGANIBAN, as District Engineer respondent

MERCADO,asChiefofthePlanningandDesignSectionrespondentCRUZ,asChiefoftheDPWHConstruction
SectionandrespondentBRUCAL,asProjectEngineer,[have]establishedthatundersizedreinforcementsteelbars
and poor quality lumber were used by the contractor in the Inaclagan School Building. Thus, it is apparent that
respondentsPANGANIBAN,CRUZ,andBRUCAL[cannot]escapeadministrativeliabilityforGrossNeglectof
Duty for their serious lapses and gross negligence relative to their official responsibility in the matter of
adherencetotheapprovedplansandspecificationsandacceptedengineeringmethods.

ItisimportanttoconsiderhereinthattheclaimofrespondentsCRUZandBRUCALthatcorrectivemeasureswere
undertaken visvis the Inaclagan project does not serve to rebut their clear administrative liability. Verily, their
culpability in connection with the Inaclagan project had already arisen before the socalled corrective measures
wereundertaken.

...

WHEREFORE,PREMISESCONSIDERED,thisOfficefinds:

1.RespondentsCESARA.CRUZ,ALFONSOA.CUSTODIO,JR.,EDUARDOV.MALLARI,JOSEE.ALMEROand
ROLANDOC.ABRIGO,GuiltyofDishonesty

2.RespondentsCESARA.CRUZandFLORENTINOP.BRUCAL,GuiltyofDishonesty

3.RespondentsCESARA.CRUZandFLORENTINOBRUCAL,GuiltyofGrossNeglectofDuty

4.RespondentsCESARA.CRUZ,ALFONSOA.CUSTODIO,JR.,JOSEE.ALMERO,EDUARDOV.MALLARIand
ROLANDOABRIGO,GuiltyofGrossNeglectofDutyand,

5.RespondentsCESARA.CRUZ,ROLANDOC.ABRIGO,JOSEE.ALMEROandMA.LUISABRUSILLA,Guiltyof
GraveMisconduct

forwhichthepenaltyofDismissalfromtheServicewithCancellationofEligibility,ForfeitureofLeaveCreditsand
Retirement Benefits and Disqualification for Reemployment in the Government Service is hereby recommended
pursuanttoRuleIII,Section10ofAdministrativeOrderNo.07,inrelationtoSection25ofRepublicActNo.6770.

ItisfurtherrecommendedthatthecomplaintagainstROMEOV.ALGENIO,FEZ.NACORDA,MANUELBAYANIR.
BUKAS,ERNANIC.TANandUMILTAA.LORCAbeDismissed.

SORESOLVED.19[Emphasissupplied.]

TheResolutionwasapprovedbytheOmbudsmanonNovember11,1998.Separatemotionsforreconsideration20
werefiledbypetitioners.However,theyweredeniedintheOrder21datedMarch2,1999,uponrecommendationof
GIOFangon.

Onappeal,theCourtofAppealsaffirmedwithmodificationtheResolutionoftheOmbudsman,towit:

INTHELIGHTOFALLTHEFOREGOING,thehereinassailedResolution,datedAugust4,1998,ofthe
RespondentOmbudsmanisherebyAFFIRMEDwithrespecttothefollowingdispositionoftheRespondent
Ombudsman,respectingtheirregularitieswhichattendedtheconstructionoftheBarangayHighSchoolBuildingin
Inaclagan,Gumaca,Quezon,finding:

2.RespondentsCESARA.CRUZandFlorentinoBrucal,GuiltyofDishonestyand

3.RespondentsCESARA.CRUZandFlorentinoBrucal,GuiltyofGrossNeglectofDuty

...

ForwhichthePenaltyofDismissalfromtheServicewithCancellationofEligibility,ForfeitureofLeaveCreditsand
Retirement Benefits and Disqualification for Reemployment in the Government Service is hereby recommended
pursuanttoRuleIII,Section10ofAdministrativeOrderNo.07,inrelationtoSection25ofRepublicActNo.6770.

...

butMODIFIEDinthat:
1. The charges of DISHONESTY and GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY against Petitioners CESAR A. CRUZ,
EDUARDO V. MALLARI, JOSE E. ALMERO and ROLANDO ABRIGO, appertaining to the alleged irregularities
committed by the Prequalification, Bids and Awards Committee Quezon 2nd Engineering District (hereinafter
referredtoasPBACII,forbrevity),DepartmentofPublicWorksandHighways(DPWH),intheawardofprojectsto
certaincontractors,areDISMISSEDonthegroundofresjudicataand

2. The charge of GRAVE MISCONDUCT against Petitioners CESAR A. CRUZ, ROLANDO ABRIGO, JOSE E.
ALMERO and MA. LUISA R. BRUSILLA, anent the alleged collusion among the contractors, [is] DISMISSED for
lackofmerit.

SOORDERED.22

Petitioners motion for reconsideration23 was likewise denied by the appellate court in its Resolution24 dated
November20,2001.Hence,theinstantpetitionforreviewoncertiorari.

Beforeus,theloneissuepresentedis:

WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONERS BRUCAL AND CRUZ, BEING THE CHIEF OF DPWH CONSTRUCTION
SECTIONANDPROJECTENGINEER,RESPECTIVELY,COULDLEGALLYANDVALIDLYBEHELDLIABLEFOR
DISHONESTY AND GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY IN SIGNING THE STATEMENT OF WORK ACCOMPLISHED
ANDSTATEMENTOFTIMEELAPSED.25

Petitioners concede that there had been lapses in the initial construction of the Inaclagan project. However, they
invokethattheyurgentlycausedthecontractortorectifytheerrors.26

Forthechargeofdishonesty,thepetitionerscontendthatthequestioneddecisionisbasedonamisapprehensionof
facts.TheyallegethattheysignedtheStatementofWorkAccomplishedaswellastheStatementofTimeElapsed
onApril4,1990,aftercorrectivemeasureswereundertakenontheproject.

PetitionerBrucalcontendsthathecannotbeheldliablefordishonestyemphasizingthathewassignatorysolelyon
the Statement of Time Elapsed, a document which pertains to the original contract time, date of effectivity of
contract, contract amount, total calendar days elapsed to date, percentage of time elapsed, percentage of work
accomplished and slippage.27 It had nothing to do with the materials used in the project nor the manner of its
constructioninaccordancewiththeapprovedplansandspecificationsascharged.28PetitionerCruz, for his part,
contendsthathecannotbefaultedforrelyingonEngr.Razoscertificationthatthematerialsusedintheprojecthad
been tested and had passed all the requirements.29 As enunciated in Sistoza v. Desierto30 and Arias v.
Sandiganbayan,31Cruzaversthatasheadofoffice,hecan,toareasonableextentrelyonhissubordinate.

Onthechargeofgrossneglectofduty,petitionerssubmitthattherecouldbenoadministrativeculpabilityasthey
actedingoodfaith.32Theybothattendedtoothersimultaneousongoingprojectsandthuscouldnotbephysically
present everyday during the construction of the Inaclagan project. In most cases, the project engineer gave only
instructionstothecontractoranditsresidentengineer.AsintheInaclaganproject,theyaskedthebarangayofficials
tooverseetheproject.Finally,petitionersalsoinvokeintheirfavor,theswiftanddecisiveremediestheyemployed
upon learning about the defects in the construction33 and their untainted service record34 which spans thirtyone
yearsforBrucalandfortytwoyearsforCruz.35

TheOMB,throughtheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral,countersthatpetitionersclaimthattheysignedtheStatement
of Work Accomplished only after corrections were made in the construction and in compliance with plans and
specifications is a factual matter that cannot be raised for the first time in this petition for review. Contrary to
petitioners claim, they are being charged based on their respective duties. As Project Engineer, the nature of
Brucalsofficialdutiesobligatedhim,togetherwithCruz,asChief,tooverseetheimplementationoftheprojectand
determineifthecontractoroftheprojectwascomplyingwiththeapprovedplansandspecificationsbytheDPWH.36
Ontheotherhand,asChiefoftheQuezonSecondEngineeringDistrictConstructionSection,Cruzsprimaryduty
wastoensurethatRAMBuilderscompliedwithstandardsandspecificationsoftheDPWH.

While we agree with public respondent that factual matters are beyond the province of this Court, a recognized
exception to this rule is when there is misapprehension of facts.37 It must be stressed that petitioners were held
liableforfalsificationand/ordishonestyforallegedlymakingitappearthattheconstructionofthethreeclassroom
buildingattheInaclaganBarangayHighSchoolwasinaccordancewiththeplansandspecifications,althoughthere
weresubstantialdeviationsintermsofmaterials,qualityofworkandconstructionmethods.38ForpetitionerCruz,
signing the Statement of Work Accomplished, despite the fact that the proper methods of construction were not
complied with, amounts to dishonesty. On Brucals part, signing the Statement of Time Elapsed constitutes fraud
anddishonestyvisvisthecontractorsobligationrelativetotheplansandspecificationsasitallowedpaymentto
RAMBuilders.Clearly,thepetitionersfactualavermentthatthesaidstatementsweresignedaftercorrectionswere
made need to be ascertained to determine their liability on the charge for dishonesty. As defined, dishonesty is
intentionallymakingafalsestatementinanymaterialfact,orpracticingorattemptingtopracticeanydeceptionor
fraud in securing his examination, registration, appointment or promotion.39 Dishonesty is understood to imply a
dispositiontolie,cheat,deceive,ordefrauduntrustworthinesslackofintegrity.40

AcarefulperusaloftherecordsrevealsthataftertheawardoftheInaclaganprojecttoRAMBuildersonFebruary5,
1990,constructioncommencedonFebruary26,1990.Despitetheinterruptionintheconstructionduetodefects,as
reported by the oversight committee in its letters to District Engineer Medardo R. Panganiban, the corrective
measures were undertaken by RAM Builders upon resumption of its construction on March 28, 1990. By the first
weekofApril,theprojectwascompleted.41ClaimforpaymentwasthereafterprocessedonApril4,1990.Clearly,
whenthepetitionerssignedtheirrespectivestatementswhichallowedpaymenttoRAMBuilders,theconstructionof
theprojectwasalreadyfinishedinaccordancewiththeapprovedplansandspecification.Suchdidnotamountto
dishonestyastheymadenofalsestatement.Nodeliberateintenttomislead,deceiveordefraudcanbereadfrom
thecitedcircumstancesofthiscase.

Anentthechargeofgrossneglect,weareinaccordwiththefindingsoftheOMBAdjudicationBureau,asaffirmed
by the Court of Appeals, finding herein petitioners liable for gross neglect of duty. Gross negligence refers to
negligencecharacterizedbythewantofevenslightcare,actingoromittingtoactinasituationwherethereisaduty
to act, not inadvertently but wilfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences in so far as
otherpersonsmaybeaffected.Itistheomissionofthatcarewhicheveninattentiveandthoughtlessmenneverfail
totakeontheirownproperty.42Incasesinvolvingpublicofficials,thereisgrossnegligencewhenabreachofdutyis
flagrantandpalpable.43

AsfoundbytheOMBTaskForce,theconstructionoftheschoolbuildingsufferedfrommajordefects,resultinginan
edifice far weaker in strength as a direct result of the contractors improper methods and use of substandard
materials. As a corrective measure, additional reinforcement steel bars had to be added, inferior lumber removed
andpouringofconcretecementovertheexistingfoundationmade.

Wefindthatpetitionerswereunabletosatisfactorilyexplaintheirfailuretooverseetheprojectinitscriticalstages.
Theirdefensethatcorrectionswereneverthelessemployedandthattheyhandledotherprojectsdonotnegatetheir
administrativeliability.Instead,itisindicativeofaconsciousdesigntodelegatethevitaltaskincumbentuponthem
asengineerswhoseappointmenttosuchpositionisbyreasonoftheiracademicpreparationandworkexperienceto
conceptualize,plan,implementandmanageadevelopmentprojectofthegovernment.

The responsibility of overseeing the implementation of the Inaclagan project is lodged with the petitioners. They
were to ensure adherence by the contractor to the approved plans, specifications, and accepted engineering
methods. In fact, as project engineer,44 Brucals tasks, as spelled out in the Manual on Infrastructure Projects,
includemonitoringslippages45andnoncomplianceofthecontractorwithapprovedplansandspecifications.46

Evidently, they failed to timely perform their assigned duties with dedication, efficiency, and utmost responsibility,
idealswhichmenandwomeninpublicserviceoughttocherishanddutifullyobserve.Onthewhole,petitionersas
construction engineers in charge of the Inaclagan project, should be fully cognizant not only of the professional
natureandresponsibilitiesofthetaskbutitsimpactaswellontheefficiencyofpublicservice.Aspublicservants,
petitioners are expected to exhibit the highest degree of dedication in deference to their foremost duty of
accountabilitytothepeople.47NolessthantheConstitutionsanctifiestheprinciplethatpublicofficeisapublictrust,
andenjoinsallpublicofficersandemployeestoservewiththehighestdegreeofresponsibility,integrity,loyaltyand
efficiency.48

PursuanttoSection23,49RuleXIVoftheOmnibusRulesImplementingBookVofExecutiveOrderNo.292,gross
negligenceintheperformanceofdutyisclassifiedasagraveoffenseforwhichthepenaltyofdismissalisimposed.
Section9ofthesaidRulelikewiseprovidesthatthepenaltyofdismissalshallcarrywithitcancellationofeligibility,
forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits and the disqualification for reemployment in the government
service.50

Fortunately, the construction defects were remedied seasonably and the project at Inaclagan High School was
completedwithoutfurthermishaps.

WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDENIED.TheassailedDecisionandResolutionoftheCourtofAppealsdatedJune
22,2001andNovember20,2001,respectively,findingEngr.FlorentinoR.BrucalandCesarA.CruzliableforGross
NeglectofDutyandimposingthepenaltyofdismissalfromtheservice,areAFFIRMEDwithMODIFICATION,such
thattheportiondealingwithcancellationofeligibility,forfeitureofleavecreditsandretirementbenefitsand
disqualificationforreemploymentintheGovernmentServiceisDELETED.Costsagainstpetitioners.

SOORDERED.