DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN v. P/S SUPT. SALIGUMBA

Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices Vs. P/S Supt. Luis L. Saligumba

G.R. No. 223768

February 22, 2017

FACTS:

P/S Supt. Luis Saligumba was charged with simple negligence as the one in charge of the procurement of equipments needed to purchase for the use of Maritime Groups, namely the police rubber boats (PRBs) and out-board-motors (OBMs) to be latched into the said boats.  During the process of procurement, due to some recommendations as well as to adopt to the manageable criteria of the suppliers, the specifications of the PRBs and OBMs were adjusted. Deliveries of equipments were made by different suppliers respectively and it was received by the Inspection and Acceptance Committee.

However, it turned out in the end that there were equipments that were defective and, upon testing, the PRBs and the OBMs did not match.  It will be risky to the end user if ever it would be used.  An investigation was conducted and as a result, a complaint for Gross Neglect of Duty and Gross Incompetence were charged to the 21 officials and officers of the PNP, including the respondent.

Saligumba vehemently denied the charges against him. He claimed that he acted and signed the documents upon the recommendation of the IAC.  He said that the equipments were inconformity with the NAPOLCOM specifications and, according to the reports, all appeared to be regular.

The Ombudsman’s decision charged Saligumba guilty of simple neglect of duty.  The respondent filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied.  The CA, however, granted the respondents petition, Thus, the case reached the SC.

ISSUE:   

Whether or not the respondent was guilty of the administrative negligence as charge by the office of the Ombudsman.

RULING:

The SC ruled that simple neglect of duty meant that the failure of the person concerned to give proper attention to a task expected of him or her, signifying a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness and indifference.  The respondent fell short of the reasonable diligence required.

 He failed to perform the task of inspecting the deliveries in accordance with the conditions of the procurement documents and rejecting said deliveries in case of deviation.  The SC reinstated the Ombudsman’s decision while CA’s was set aside.