View full case

JOVITO C. PLAMERAS v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

The case involves the appeal filed by Jovita C. Plameras, the Governor of the Province of Antique, from the decision of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 26172. The case stemmed from the implementation of the "Purchase of School Desks Program" by the Department of Education, Culture, and Sports (DECS) Central Office. On March 12, 1997, Plameras received two checks from the DECS-PAF amounting to P5,666,667.00 for the purchase of school desks and armchairs. On April 8, 1997, Plameras signed a Purchaser-Seller Agreement with CKL Enterprises for the supply and delivery of monoblock grader's desks. On April 21, 1997, Plameras applied for the opening of an Irrevocable Domestic Letter of Credit in favor of CKL Enterprises, which was approved by the LBP. On April 24, 1997, Plameras signed a sales invoice indicating that he received and accepted 1,354 grader's desks and 5,246 tablet armchairs for the total value of P5,666,600.00. On March 2, 1998, Plameras inquired about the delivery of the purchased items and discovered that CKL Enterprises had delivered fewer items than stated in the sales invoice. A case was filed by the Province of Antique represented by its new Governor, Exequiel B. Javier, to compel CKL Enterprises to refund the amount of P5,666,600.00 with interests. In addition, Governor Javier filed a criminal complaint against Plameras for the violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. The Office of the Ombudsman for Visayas found probable cause to indict Plameras based on the apparent violation of existing rules and regulations in the purchase of the desks and chairs.

The petitioner, the Governor of the Province of Antique, entered into a Purchaser-Seller Agreement with CKL Enterprises for the purchase of school desks and armchairs for the province. The agreement was facilitated by a representative from the Department of Education (DECS). The petitioner signed the agreement after being assured by the DECS representative that it was the standard format followed by other beneficiary provinces. The agreement stated that payment would be made upon submission of delivery receipts, inspection report, acceptance report, sales invoice, and a letter to the bank to effect payment. The petitioner applied for a letter of credit from Land Bank and attached a copy of the Purchaser-Seller Agreement to inform the bank of the payment conditions. The bank approved the application and issued a bank draft. The petitioner signed the sales invoice and bank draft based on the assurance from a CKL representative that the other required documents would follow. However, a summary report later revealed a shortage of delivery, and it was discovered that CKL had negotiated the letter of credit and was fully paid by the bank. The petitioner claimed that there was misrepresentation in securing his signature on the sales invoice because he was assured that the other documents would be submitted, but the letter of credit was fully negotiated on the same day. The petitioner was charged with violating anti-graft laws and filed a petition questioning the ruling of the Sandiganbayan.

The petitioner in this case claims misappreciation of facts and evidence. He argues that he never profited from the transaction and that the school desk procurement program was implemented by the then DECS, with the Province of Antique as a mere beneficiary. The petitioner asserts that he had no involvement in choosing the procurement method and the means of effecting payment through a Letter of Credit adopted by DECS. Furthermore, he did not actually pay the supplier since the terms of the Letter of Credit required the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) to release the payment only after compliance with certain requirements. The petitioner alleges collusion between the DECS and LBP personnel that enabled the supplier to negotiate and encash the Letter of Credit without his knowledge and without the required documents for the release of payment. The petitioner argues that while the DECS and LBP personnel were not held accountable, he was convicted. He raises several errors assigned to the Sandiganbayan, including treating the purchaser-seller agreement separately from the mother contract, finding that he violated procurement rules on public bidding, finding that he violated Section 338 of RA 6170 (which prohibits advance payment), finding that he acted with evident bad faith and manifest partiality, and finding that he gave unwarranted benefits to the supplier.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the exoneration of DECS officials in a separate case related to a mother contract is relevant to the present case.

  2. Whether the petitioner should be held liable for a contract he entered into as a beneficiary.

  3. Whether the questioned transaction is a matter of fact or law.

  4. Whether the petitioner, a public officer, acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.

  5. Whether the petitioner's actions caused undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference.

  6. Whether petitioner deserves to be exonerated.

  7. Whether there was evidence of undue injury caused to the Province of Antique and giving of unwarranted benefit, advantage, or preference to CKL Enterprises/Dela Cruz committed through gross inexcusable negligence.

RULING:

  1. The exoneration of DECS officials in a separate case is not relevant to the present case as it pertains to a different transaction and has no bearing on the prejudice suffered by the Province of Antique.

  2. The petitioner, being a beneficiary of the contract, should not be held liable for merely following the procedure observed by DECS.

  3. The questioned transaction is a matter of fact, not involving a question of law. Questions of fact are not reviewable under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

  4. The Sandiganbayan found the petitioner guilty of the offense charged. The Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Sandiganbayan committed reversible errors in its findings.

  5. The court ruled that petitioner does not deserve to be exonerated. The evidence of undue injury caused to the Province of Antique and the giving of unwarranted benefit, advantage, or preference to CKL Enterprises/Dela Cruz committed through gross inexcusable negligence was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Questions of law must be distinctly set forth in a petition for review under Rule 45.

  • Questions of fact are not reviewable.

  • Findings of fact made by a trial court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court, absent any abuse, arbitrariness, or capriciousness.

  • To be liable under Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019, three elements must concur: (a) the accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions; (b) he must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and (c) his action caused undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference.

  • "Manifest partiality" refers to clear, notorious, or plain inclination or predilection to favor one side or person over another. "Evident bad faith" involves not only bad judgment but also palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose. "Gross inexcusable negligence" refers to negligence characterized by the want of even the slightest care, acting or omitting to act wilfully and intentionally, with conscious indifference to consequences.

  • Procurement of supplies by local government units shall be through competitive public bidding, except as otherwise provided by law. Negotiated contracts can only be resorted to in case of failure of a public bidding.

  • Withdrawal of funds covered by an Irrevocable Domestic Letter of Credit must be accompanied by appropriate documents evidencing deliveries. Signing the sales invoice and bank draft without any delivery of the items is irregular.

  • Officers must act in a circumspect manner to protect government funds and should verify representations or advice received before proceeding with any transaction. Acting without authorization and failing to consult other members of the relevant board can be considered gross inexcusable negligence.

  • Gross inexcusable negligence can result in undue injury and giving unwarranted benefit to another party.

  • The customer's signature on the invoice signifies acceptance of the received items in good condition, initiating the process of releasing payment to the seller.

  • The court requires strong evidence to exonerate a petitioner.