The Supreme Court (SC) has granted partially the appeal of then Philippine National Police (PNP) Director General Alan La Madrid Purisima who was ordered dismissed by the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) in 2015 for grave abuse of authority, grave misconduct and serious dishonesty.
Instead of dismissal from the service which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, the SC reduced the penalty imposed on Purisima to one-year suspension without pay.
Also, the SC – in the decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting and made public last June 15 -- restored all Purisima’s “rights, emoluments, benefits, and privileges removed by, and forfeited in, the assailed Ombudsman Consolidated Decision dated June 25, 2015.”
Purisima’s dismissal arose from the PNP’s implementation of the P100 million courier service contract signed in 2011 with Werfast Documentation Agency, Inc. (Werfast) for the delivery of firearms licenses.
Aside from his dismissal from the service, the OMB also ordered the forfeiture of Purisima’s retirement benefits, cancellation of eligibility, bar from taking civil service examinations and perpetual disqualification from re-employment in government service.
Purisima elevated to the CA the OMB’s ruling. But the CA, in a decision dated May 12, 2017, dismissed his petition. He then filed an appeal before the SC.
The dispositive portion of the SC’s decision:
.“WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated May 12, 2017 and the Resolution dated February 9, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 141247 are SET ASIDE and the Entry of Judgment dated September 12, 2018 is VACATED.
“Petitioner Alan La Madrid Purisima is found GUILTY of Gross Neglect of Duty for which he is SUSPENDED for one (1) year without pay reckoned from the time that the Ombudsman Consolidated Decision dated June 25, 2015 was implemented and with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
“The period within which petitioner was dismissed from service pending appeal is creditable in the implementation of the penalty of one (1) year suspension herein imposed. All his rights, emoluments, benefits, and privileges removed by, and forfeited in, the assailed Ombudsman Consolidated Decision dated June 25, 2015 are hereby RESTORED.
“Let a copy of this Decision be reflected in the permanent employment record of petitioner Alan La Madrid Purisima. SO ORDERED.”
Case records showed that on May 25, 2011, Werfast proposed to the PNP an online computerized renewal system and courier delivery service of firearms licenses. The letter proposal with a copy of a draft memorandum of agreement (MOA) was addressed to then PNP Chief General Raul M. Bacalzo.
On Aug. 24, 2011, Bacalzo approved the signing of the MOA.
Two months after Purisima was designated PNP acting chief, he received a memorandum dated Feb. 12, 2013 from Director Gil Meneses of the Civil Security Group (CSG) on the delivery of renewed firearms licenses.
The Meneses memorandum stated that upon implementation of “Oplan Katok” (PNP’s house-to-house visitation to check firearms licenses), licensees visited were found to be unknown and/or not living in the addresses listed in the PNP’s management information system.
Thus, the memorandum recommended the mandatory delivery of firearms licenses to the registered addresses through Werfast. The memorandum was approved by Purisima on Feb. 17, 2013.
However, the PNP received numerous complaints against Werfast. An anonymous complaint alleged that Purisima, his friends and cohorts siphoned millions of pesos from the mandatory delivery fees paid by gun owners by entering into a MOA with Werfast on May 25, 2011 despite the latter being incorporated only on Aug. 10, 2011.
In March 2014, the PNP terminated its contract with Werfast for gross inefficiency.
On April 16, 2014, complainant Glenn Gerard C. Ricafranca filed an affidavit before the OMB. He alleged that the MOA with Werfast was entered into without public bidding, that Werfast had not yet been issued its Certificate of Incorporation by the Securities and Exchange Commission, and that Werfast was not authorized by the Department of Transportation and Communication to deliver mails or parcels to the public.
Ricafranca also alleged that numerous firearms licensees complained of delay in the delivery, lack of official receipts, inaccessibility of the Werfast website, useless tracking option, and service fees which were more expensive that those charged by other courier service firms.
Based on FFIB-MOLEO’s probe and recommendation, the OMB, on June 25, 2015, found Purisima guilty and was ordered dismissed from the service with accessory penalties.
When the CA dismissed his petition, Purisima appealed to the SC.
In affirming with modification the CA’s decision, the SC said that Purisima could have suspended the contract with Werfast “when it became apparent that Werfast was incapable of properly handling the delivery of firearm licenses.”
“Instead, he allowed the problems to persist for another eight months before he terminated the contract with Werfast on the ground of gross inefficiency,” the SC said.
“From the foregoing, the Court rules that petitioner is liable for Gross Neglect of Duty or Gross Negligence. Gross Neglect of Duty or Gross Negligence refers to negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences, insofar as other persons may be affected,” it said.
The SC also said:
“Under Section 22, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 and Other Pertinent Civil Service Laws, Gross Neglect of Duty or Gross Negligence is considered a grave offense punishable by dismissal on the first offense.
“However, the extreme penalty of dismissal is not automatically imposed. Section 48,112 Rule X of the 2011 Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, grants the disciplining authority the discretion to consider mitigating circumstances in the imposition of the proper penalty.
“In several cases, the Court appreciated various mitigating circumstances, i.e., length of service, unblemished record, among other things, and thus, imposed a lower penalty to the erring public official or employee.
“Taking into consideration petitioner's unblemished 38 years of service reckoned from the time he entered the police force on April 1, 1977 and his numerous meritorious awards and commendations which he pleaded and invoked before the Court, the CA, and the Ombudsman, the Court is persuaded to impose the penalty next lower in degree under Section 22, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 and Other Pertinent Civil Service Laws....
“Petitioner is meted out the penalty of one (1) year suspension without pay. It must be clarified, however, that petitioner is not entitled to back salaries considering that although the Court reduced his penalty, he was still found guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty or Gross Negligence.
“In the present case, however, reinstatement is no longer possible because petitioner already resigned as PNP Chief during the pendency of his preventive suspension case before the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 138296 and CA-G.R. SP No. 138722.”