CA junks TRO plea of ex-Corona lawyer vs. dismissal over purchase of P1M van

The Court of Appeals has junked a petition by former Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila acting president Jose "Jud" Roy III for a temporary restraining order on his dismissal over the irregular purchase of a Hyundai Starex van in 2006.

In a seven-page ruling penned by Associate Justice Apolinario Bruselas Jr., the CA Fourteenth Division denied Roy's plea for the issuance of a temporary restraining order against his dismissal by the Office of the Ombudsman last November 2015.

Roy was the former lawyer of ousted Chief Justice Renato Corona during the Senate impeachment trial and the former chief of staff of former Chief Justice Andres Narvasa at the high tribunal.

“Accordingly, the petitioner’s prayer… may not be granted under the obtaining circumstances. It is consequently denied,” the CA ruling read.

“Considering, however, that the petition was filed within the 15 day period within which a petition for review may be filed under Rule 43, which should have been the proper mode of appeal, we therefore treat this as a petition for review,” it added.

In dismissing Roy from service, the Ombudsman said that the purchase of the P1.168-million Hyundai Starex van did not go through public bidding.

"They [Roy and accused PLM employees] unlawfully resorted to direct contracting as a mode of procurement," the Ombudsman said.

Based on records of the case, the Commission on Audit issued a notice of suspension citing non-compliance with procurement regulations and the lack of the university’s annual procurement plan.

Roy and the other accused claimed that the “decision to resort to direct contracting stemmed from the urgency of the end-user’s need."

On Aug. 7, 2013, an administrative complaint was filed by the Field Investigation Office (FIO) of the Ombudsman against Roy and eight other respondents for grave misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, gross neglect of duty, inefficiency and incompetence, for failure to comply with the rules of public bidding under Republic Act No. 9184 when the vehicle was acquired.

In November 2015, the Ombudsman found Roy, Angelita Solis, Eloisa Macalinao, Cecilioa Calma, Angeles Ramos, Felix Aspiras, and Albert Dela Cruz guilty of grave misconduct.

In its decision, the Ombudsman said “respondents deliberately disregarded the requirements of R.A. 9184 (Government Procurement Reform Act) to favor and give benefits to the dealer of Hyundai Starex van.”

Aside from dismissal from government service, Roy and the other PLM employees were also meted with perpetual disqualification from holding public office and forfeiture of retirement benefits.

Roy elevated the case to the appeals court, arguing that the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion when it ordered the immediate implementation of its order.

However, in its ruling, the CA held that “if administrative decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman are immediately executory even pending appeal, there is no reason why these decisions cannot also be immediately executory pending a motion for reconsideration.” — RSJ, GMA News