Title: Tirol v.

COA

Doctrine: none

Parties:
 Petitioners – Victoriano B. Tirol, Jr.
 Respondents – Commission on Audit, Region VIII

Facts:

This is a petition for review on certiorari under RA 6770 Sec. 27 (Ombudsman Act of 1989).

Petitioner is the incumbent Regional Director of the Department of Education, Culture, and
Sports (DECS) in Region V. Prior to the assignment he was the DECS Regional Director of Region
VIII. In the latter capacity he was charged with the violation of RE 2019 Sec. 3(g) for entering into a
contract alleged to be disadvantageous to the gov’t. The charge was for the alleged overpricing of
various school eqpt. for the Lalawigan National High School.

Because of the complaint, region VIII of respondent COA audited the operations and
accounts of Lalawigan National High School. COA found that there was a malversation of public
funds, citing the purchase of certain supplies and eqpt. done through a negotiated contract and not thru
competitive public bidding (contrary to COA Circular 85-55A). In the questioned purchase, the
agency failed to ascertain the reasonableness of the contract prices, resulting in an overprice of
Php35,100 as compared to COA’s actual canvass of prices.

COA recommended the filing of both criminal and admin cases against persons liable,
including petitioner and his approval of the RIV for the purchase. Petitioner alleged that the
documents were previously reviewed by his subordinates, and approved them only upon certification
that everything was in order. He claimed his approval to be a purely ministerial act. However, his co-
respondents did not dispute the overcharging and claimed it to be a purchase that is emergency in
nature. It was held that the doubtful purchase did not qualify as an emergency purchase.

In an Information filed with the Sandiganbayan, petitioner and two co-respondents were
charged guilty for their overpriced purchases.

Issue: WoN there has been a violation of any law

Holding: Yes, there has been a violation of a law by petitioner

Petitioner is guilty of violation of RA 3019 Sec. 3(g) which prohibits against entering into
contracts or transactions grossly disadvantageous to the gov’t.

Petitioner claimed that he acted in good faith and without conspiracy, but the Ombudsman
believes otherwise. The Court does not usually interfere with the discretion of the Ombudsman in
determining if there exists reasonable ground to believe a crime has been committed, and such. This
rule is based not only on respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the
Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman but upon practicality as well.

Additionally, the totality of petitioner’s and his counsel’s acts, manifests a scheme to delay
the resolution of a pending case. The actions filed by petitioner before this Court, as well as this
current case, are a modified form of forum shopping.