In Tan v. People, the Supreme Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction over public officials, specifically managers in government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs), charged with violations of Republic Act No. 9184 (RA 9184), the Government Procurement Reform Act, regardless of their salary grade. This decision clarifies that as long as the offense is committed in relation to their office, the Sandiganbayan retains jurisdiction, reinforcing accountability in government procurement processes. This ruling highlights the importance of adhering to procurement laws and the potential legal ramifications for public officials who fail to do so, emphasizing the need for transparency and accountability in government transactions.

Delaying Bids, Defending Authority: Who Decides in Government Contracts?

This case revolves around the actions of Mario Geraldo Tan, Oscar Jingapo Lopez, Glenn Biancingo Castillo, Perlita Gemperoa Jumapao, and Sofronio Tillor Magdadaro (collectively, petitioners), who were charged with violating Section 65(a)(2) of RA 9184. The petitioners, all managers within the Cebu Port Authority (CPA), were accused of delaying the opening of bids for janitorial/support services for Calendar Year (CY) 2011. The central legal question is whether the Sandiganbayan, a special court for government officials, had jurisdiction over their case, given that their positions were below salary grade 27, the typical threshold for Sandiganbayan jurisdiction.

The controversy began when the CPA published an Invitation to Bid (ITB) for the subject procurement. The ITB specified that bids and eligibility requirements were due on or before May 18, 2011. However, CPA Commissioner Tomas Alburo Riveral requested a postponement due to “queries from the media and port stakeholders.” This request was approved by CPA General Manager Villamor, leading to the postponement of the bid opening. Consequently, a complaint was filed against Riveral and the petitioners with the Office of the Ombudsman, which found probable cause to indict them for violating Section 65(a)(2) of RA 9184. The Ombudsman’s decision led to the filing of an Information before the Sandiganbayan.

The petitioners argued that the Sandiganbayan lacked jurisdiction because their positions as managers within the CPA were below the salary grade 27 threshold. They also contended that the violation of the procurement law did not fall under Section 4(a) of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1606, as amended, which outlines the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction. They believed that the charge against them should have involved a violation of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), RA 1379 (Forfeiture of Illegally Acquired Assets), or Title VII, Chapter II, Section 2 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) (Bribery). These arguments formed the core of their defense, challenging the very basis of the Sandiganbayan’s authority to hear their case.

However, the Supreme Court disagreed with the petitioners, referencing previous cases that clarified the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that public officials with positions below Salary Grade 27 could still fall under the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction if they held positions enumerated under Section 4(1)(a) to (g) of PD No. 1606, as amended. The court cited People v. Sandiganbayan and Amante, stating:

“Those that are classified as Grade 26 and below may still fall within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan provided that they hold the positions thus enumerated by the same law. Particularly and exclusively enumerated are provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan, and provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other provincial department heads; city mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod, city treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other city department heads; officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position as consul and higher; Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of higher rank; PNP chief superintendent and PNP officers of higher rank; City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor; and presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations. In connection therewith, Section 4(b) of the same law provides that other offenses or felonies committed by public officials and employees mentioned in subsection (a) in relation to their office also fall under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.”

Building on this principle, the Court noted that the petitioners held managerial positions within the CPA, a government-owned and controlled corporation (GOCC). Since Section 4(a)(1)(g) of PD No. 1606, as amended, specifically includes “managers of government-owned or controlled corporations” as public officers under the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction, the Court concluded that the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the petitioners, regardless of their salary grade. The Court reinforced that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over presidents, directors, trustees, or managers of GOCCs.

The Court further addressed the petitioners’ argument that the Sandiganbayan lacked jurisdiction because the charge against them was not for violation of RA 3019, RA 1379, or Title VII, Chapter II, Section 2 of the RPC. The Court clarified that public officials enumerated in Section 4(l)(a) to (g) of PD No. 1606, as amended, could be charged in the Sandiganbayan not only with those specific violations but also with other offenses or felonies committed in relation to their office, pursuant to Section 4(b) of PD No. 1606, as amended.

In essence, the phrase “other offenses and felonies” is broad but limited to those committed in relation to the public official’s office. If the offense charged in the Information is intimately connected with the office and alleged to have been perpetrated while the accused was performing their official functions, even if improper or irregular, and there was no personal motive to commit the crime, the accused is considered to have been indicted for an offense committed in relation to their office. Here, the Court emphasized that a plain reading of the Information filed against the petitioners clearly stated that the charge against them was committed in relation to their office and duties, taking advantage of their official positions in the CPA.

The Court also addressed the petitioners’ contention that the Information did not allege any damage to the government or bribery. The Court pointed out that the offense was committed on May 18, 2011, before the effectivity of RA No. 10660 on May 5, 2015. Therefore, RA No. 10660, which requires the allegation of damage or bribery in cases falling under the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction, did not apply to the petitioners’ case. The court in Ampongan held that the amendment in Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606 on jurisdiction shall apply only to cases arising from offenses committed after its effectivity:

It is clear from the transitory provision of R.A. No. 10660 that the amendment introduced regarding the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan shall apply to cases arising from offenses committed after the effectivity of the law. Consequently, the new paragraph added by R.A. No. 10660 to Section 4 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1606, as amended, transferring the exclusive original jurisdiction to the RTC of cases where the information: (a) does not allege any damage to the government or any bribery; or (b) alleges damage to the government or bribery arising from the same or closely related transactions or acts in an amount not exceeding [PHP 1,000,000.00], applies to cases which arose from offenses committed after the effectivity of R.A. No. 10660.

Finally, the Court rejected the petitioners’ claim that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying their Motion to Quash. The Court reiterated that the test to determine if the facts charged constitute an offense is whether the facts, if hypothetically admitted, would establish the essential elements of the crime defined in law. The Court found that the Information clearly averred all the elements of a violation of Section 65(a)(2) of RA 9184.

The Court quoted Section 6 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court regarding the sufficiency of complaint or information:

Section 6. Sufficiency of complaint or information. – A complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused, the designation of the offense by the statute, the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate time of the commission of the offense, and the place wherein the offense was committed.

When an offense is committed by more than one person, all of them shall be included in the complaint or information.

The Court determined that the Information sufficiently alleged that the petitioners were public officers and members of the CPA-BAC, holding various positions in the CPA, and that they willfully, unlawfully, and criminally delayed the opening of bids without justifiable cause, thereby violating the procurement law. The Court agreed with the Sandiganbayan that the petitioners’ arguments regarding the marginal note of Villamor and the alleged justifiable cause for the delay were matters of defense that should be addressed during a full-blown trial.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the petitioners, who were managers in a GOCC charged with violating procurement laws, despite their positions being below the typical salary grade threshold for Sandiganbayan jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction based on the petitioners’ managerial positions in a GOCC, regardless of their salary grade.
Who were the petitioners in this case?	The petitioners were Mario Geraldo Tan, Oscar Jingapo Lopez, Glenn Biancingo Castillo, Perlita Gemperoa Jumapao, and Sofronio Tillor Magdadaro, all managers within the Cebu Port Authority (CPA). They were charged with delaying the opening of bids for janitorial/support services in violation of the Government Procurement Reform Act.
What law did the petitioners allegedly violate?	The petitioners were accused of violating Section 65(a)(2) of Republic Act No. 9184, also known as the Government Procurement Reform Act. This section penalizes the delaying, without justifiable cause, of the screening for eligibility, opening of bids, evaluation, and post-evaluation of bids, and awarding of contracts beyond the prescribed periods.
What was the basis of the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction?	The Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction was based on Section 4(a)(1)(g) of Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended, which specifically includes “managers of government-owned or controlled corporations” as public officers under its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court clarified that this applies regardless of the manager’s salary grade if the offense is related to their office.
Did the petitioners argue that the Sandiganbayan lacked jurisdiction?	Yes, the petitioners argued that the Sandiganbayan lacked jurisdiction because their positions were below the salary grade 27 threshold and because the violation of the procurement law did not fall under Section 4(a) of Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended. The Supreme Court rejected these arguments.
What was the significance of R.A. No. 10660 in this case?	R.A. No. 10660 amended Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606 regarding the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, requiring allegations of damage to the government or bribery in certain cases. However, since the offense in this case occurred before the effectivity of R.A. No. 10660, the Court ruled that the amendment did not apply.
What was the Court’s ruling on the Motion to Quash?	The Court upheld the Sandiganbayan’s denial of the Motion to Quash, finding that the facts alleged in the Information constituted the offense charged. The Court stated that the arguments regarding the justifiable cause for the delay were matters of defense to be addressed during trial.
What is the practical implication of this ruling?	This ruling reinforces the accountability of managers in GOCCs for violations of procurement laws, regardless of their salary grade. It clarifies that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over these officials when the offense is related to their office, emphasizing the need for compliance with procurement regulations.

The Tan v. People decision serves as a crucial reminder for public officials, especially those in managerial roles within GOCCs, to adhere strictly to procurement laws. By affirming the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction in such cases, the Supreme Court underscores the importance of accountability and transparency in government transactions. The case reinforces that public office carries significant responsibility, and deviations from established legal procedures can lead to serious legal consequences.

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: MARIO GERALDO TAN, ET AL. VS. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 234694, November 26, 2024