In government procurement, resorting to direct contracting instead of competitive bidding requires clear justification. This means the procuring entity, like a local government unit, must prove the goods are from an exclusive source and no suitable, cheaper substitutes exist. If these conditions aren’t met and officials fail to exercise due diligence, they can be held administratively liable for dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. This ruling reinforces the importance of transparency and accountability in government spending, ensuring public funds are used efficiently and without favoritism.

A Questionable Fertilizer Deal: Did Rizal Province Officials Abuse Procurement Rules?

This case revolves around the procurement of liquid organic fertilizers by the Province of Rizal. Task Force Abono, Office of the Ombudsman filed a complaint against several local government officials, alleging irregularities in the purchase of irrigation pumps and liquid fertilizers, particularly the brand “Bio Nature” from Feshan Philippines, Inc. The central issue is whether the province properly resorted to direct contracting with Feshan, or if this decision was a scheme to unduly benefit the supplier, potentially at the expense of the government.

The legal framework governing this case is primarily Republic Act No. 9184, also known as the Government Procurement Reform Act. This law emphasizes competitive bidding as the general rule for government procurement. However, it also provides for alternative methods, including direct contracting, under specific conditions. Section 50 of R.A. 9184 outlines these conditions, stating that direct contracting may be used when dealing with:

(a) Procurement of Goods of proprietary nature, which can be obtained only from the proprietary source, i.e., when patents, trade secrets and copyrights prohibit others from manufacturing the same item;

(b) When the Procurement of critical components from a specific manufacturer, supplier or distributor is a condition precedent to hold a contractor to guarantee its project performance, in accordance with the provisions of his contract; or,

(c) Those sold by an exclusive dealer or manufacturer, which does not have subdealers selling at lower prices and for which no suitable substitute can be obtained at more advantageous terms to the Government.

The Task Force argued that the procurement process was tainted with irregularities because the Province of Rizal immediately resorted to direct contracting with Feshan, despite Feshan’s license to operate having expired. They further contended that there was no public bidding for the liquid organic fertilizer and that the province failed to canvass prices of suitable substitutes before resorting to direct contracting. In essence, the Task Force alleged that the province failed to comply with Section 21 of R.A. 9184, which mandates competitive bidding unless justified exceptions apply.

The Ombudsman initially found substantial evidence against the local government officials, ruling that their acts in procuring Bio Nature led to serious damage to the government and the public. The Ombudsman emphasized the failure to conduct public bidding when other suitable suppliers were available, leading to a significant financial loss. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the Ombudsman’s finding, stating that direct contracting was justified because the Province of Rizal needed liquid organic fertilizer with a specific composition. The Court of Appeals gave weight to the Provincial Agriculturist’s recommendations and noted that the procured fertilizers were delivered to the intended beneficiaries.

The Supreme Court took a nuanced approach, examining the responsibilities and actions of each official involved. The court reiterated the principle that the Bids and Awards Committee bears the burden of justifying its resort to direct contracting. This justification requires conducting an industry survey, determining the supply source to confirm exclusivity, and proving that no suitable alternative can be obtained at a lower cost.

The court criticized Provincial Agriculturist Rumbawa for failing to substantiate his claim that studies and research supported his recommendation for a liquid organic fertilizer with specific ingredients. The Purchase Request seemed to mirror Bio Nature’s list of components, suggesting a predetermined choice rather than an objective assessment. The Bids and Awards Committee members argued that they relied in good faith on the Technical Working Group’s research. However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument, emphasizing the Bids and Awards Committee’s mandate to ensure compliance with procurement laws.

The Supreme Court highlighted the responsibilities of the Bids and Awards Committee, stating, “The Bids and Awards Committee has the mandate of ensuring that the procuring entity abides by the standards set forth by procurement laws. Thus, it takes an active role in choosing, among others, the mode of procurement and, as an independent committee, cannot ‘pass the buck to others.’ Respondents Bids and Awards Committee members were behooved to personally satisfy themselves that the recommendations presented to them would redound to the best interest of the public.”

The Court found that the actions of the Bids and Awards Committee members showed a deliberate effort to give unwarranted benefits to Feshan. These actions included an unduly restrictive Purchase Request, a Bids and Awards Committee that ignored the expired license of the supplier, and a grossly overpriced fertilizer. As a result, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision concerning the Bids and Awards Committee members, finding them guilty of dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The court, however, dismissed the charges against Officer in Charge-Provincial Accountant Almajose, as her duties were limited to verifying the completeness and propriety of supporting documents.

This case underscores the importance of adhering to procurement regulations and exercising due diligence in government transactions. The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a reminder to public officials that they cannot simply rely on recommendations without independently verifying their validity. Failure to do so can result in severe administrative sanctions. It is not enough to claim good faith; officials must demonstrate that they took concrete steps to ensure transparency and fairness in the procurement process. The decision emphasizes the need for public officials to actively safeguard public funds and prevent even the appearance of impropriety.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the Province of Rizal properly resorted to direct contracting in purchasing liquid organic fertilizers from Feshan, or if this violated procurement laws. The Task Force argued this was an improper circumvention of competitive bidding requirements.
What is direct contracting?	Direct contracting is an alternative method of procurement where a government entity directly purchases goods or services from a supplier without competitive bidding. It’s allowed under specific circumstances, such as when the goods are proprietary or sold by an exclusive dealer, with no suitable substitutes available at better terms.
What is the role of the Bids and Awards Committee?	The Bids and Awards Committee is responsible for ensuring that the procuring entity complies with procurement laws. Their role includes choosing the mode of procurement, evaluating bids, and ensuring that the procurement process is fair and transparent.
What is considered ‘grave misconduct’ in this context?	Grave misconduct involves a transgression of an established rule, accompanied by corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules. It’s more than simple failure to comply with the law; it requires a deliberate and intentional wrongdoing.
Why were the Bids and Awards Committee members found liable?	The Bids and Awards Committee members were found liable because they failed to exercise due diligence in verifying the recommendations of the Provincial Agriculturist and the Technical Working Group. The Court found they colluded to ensure Feshan would get the contract, which constituted grave misconduct.
Why was Almajose, the Provincial Accountant, not found liable?	Almajose, as the Officer in Charge-Provincial Accountant, was not found liable because her role was limited to verifying the completeness and propriety of supporting documents for disbursement. She was not responsible for auditing the procurement process itself.
What is the significance of Feshan’s expired license?	Feshan’s expired license was a significant red flag that the Bids and Awards Committee should have considered. Transacting with a company whose license had expired raised concerns about the legality and propriety of the procurement.
What does this case say about ‘good faith’ in procurement?	This case emphasizes that claiming ‘good faith’ is not enough; officials must demonstrate that they took concrete steps to ensure transparency and fairness in the procurement process. They must actively verify recommendations and not blindly rely on others’ assessments.

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case serves as a stern warning to public officials involved in government procurement. It reiterates the importance of adhering to procurement regulations and exercising due diligence in all transactions. By holding officials accountable for their actions, the court seeks to promote transparency and efficiency in government spending, ultimately benefiting the public.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: TASK FORCE ABONO-FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN vs. EUGENE P. DURUSAN, ET AL., G.R. Nos. 229026-31, April 27, 2022