UP Law F2021 139 Brucal v.

Desierto
Public Officers Discipline 2005 Quisumbing

SUMMARY
Petitioners Brucal and Garcia were charged with dishonesty and gross neglect of duty by the Ombudsman
relative to their involvement in the project in Quezon province. It was established that the contractor hired
to do the Inaclagan Barangay Higschool project was noncompliant with the plans, specifications and work
program established. Nevertheless the petitioner signed certifications that the contractors were compliant.
CA upheld the OMB, and upon petition for review, the SC upheld CA, finding the petitioners administratively
liable for dishonesty and gross neglect of duty.

FACTS

 Petitioners Florentino R. Brucal and Cesar A. Cruz were employees1 of the Department of Public Works
and Highways (DPWH);
 They were charged with Dishonesty, Falsification of Official Documents, Grave Misconduct, Violation of
Office Rules and Regulations, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service for irregularities
in connection with the bidding, award, and implementation of contracts in the province of Quezon;
 The Ombudsman (OMB) found major defects which was a direct result of the contractor's improper
methods and its use of substandard materials (reinforcement steel bars and lumber);
 However, as found out by the OMB, Brucal and Cruz issued certifications2 attesting to the compliance to
approved plans, specifications and program of work to the contractor RAM Builders contrary to the actual
condition of the project when OMB inspected the same;
 They were found by the OMB petitioners administratively liable for dishonesty and gross neglect of duty
and recommended dismissal;
 An MR was filed by the two officials but it was denied;
 Upon appeal, the CA modified the Resolution of the OMB but upheld the verdict with respect to the
Inaclagan projects (charges of dishonesty with respect to bids and awards of Cesar Cruz was dismissed);
 Hence this petition for review before the SC.
 Argument of Brucal and Cruz:
o For the charge of dishonesty, they averred that they only signed the certifications after the corrective
measures were undertaken by the contractor;
 Additionally, Brucal contended that he cannot be held liable for dishonesty emphasizing that he
was signatory solely on the Statement of Time Elapsed, which had nothing to do with the materials
used in the project nor the manner of its construction in accordance with the approved plans and
specifications as charged.
 Cruz, for his part, contended that he cannot be faulted for relying on subordinate engineer's
certification that the materials used in the project had been tested and had passed all the
requirements. he averred that as head of office, he can, to a reasonable extent, rely on his
subordinate.
o On the charge of gross neglect of duty, petitioners submit that there could be no administrative
culpability as they acted in good faith. They both attended to other simultaneous on-going projects and
thus could not be physically present everyday during the construction of the Inaclagan project.
 Argument of OMB:
o They were charged based on their respective duties. As Project Engineer, the nature of Brucal's
official duties obligated him, together with Cruz, as Chief, to oversee the implementation of the
project and determine if the contractor of the project was complying with the approved plans and

1
members of the Second Engineering District Prequalification, Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC). Brucal was the project engineer while
Cruz was the chief of the construction section of the Inaclagan Barangay High School Project.
2
(1) As chief of the construction section, petitioner Cruz certified that all work items have been accomplished in accordance with
the approved plans, specification and program of work;
(2) Brucal signed: (a) the request for inspection and verification; (b) the certification dated April 4, 1990, to the effect that he had
witnessed the payment of salaries and supplies in connection with the Inaclagan project, that no claim for unpaid materials had
been filed by local suppliers against RAM Builders, and that they had been paid; (c) the certificate of clearance for equipment rental
and other obligations which allowed RAM Builders to claim payment; and (d) also submitted and signed the Statement of Time
Elapsed of Work Accomplished
 specifications by the DPWH. On the other hand, as Chief of the Quezon Second Engineering District
Construction Section, Cruz's primary duty was to ensure that RAM Builders complied with standards
and specifications of the DPWH.

RATIO

W/N Brucal and Cruz could be legally and validly held liable for dishonesty and gross neglect of duty
Yes.

On dishonesty
As defined, dishonesty is intentionally making a false statement in any material fact, or practicing or
attempting to practice any deception or fraud in securing his examination, registration, appointment or
promotion. Dishonesty is understood to imply a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud;
untrustworthiness; lack of integrity.

It must be stressed that petitioners were held liable for falsification and/or dishonesty for allegedly making it appear
that the construction of the three-classroom building at the Inaclagan Barangay High School was in accordance with
the plans and specifications, although there were substantial deviations in terms of materials, quality of work and
construction methods. For petitioner Cruz, signing the Statement of Work Accomplished, despite the fact that
the proper methods of construction were not complied with, amounts to dishonesty. On Brucal's part, signing
the Statement of Time Elapsed constitutes fraud and dishonesty vis - a -vis the contractor's obligation relative
to the plans and specifications as it allowed payment to RAM Builders. Clearly, the petitioners' factual
averment that the said statements were signed after corrections were made need to be ascertained to
determine their liability on the charge for dishonesty.

On gross neglect of duty

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 wilfully and intentionally, with a conscious
indifference to consequences in so far as other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care which
even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to take on their own property. In cases involving public
officials, there is gross negligence when a breach of duty is flagrant and palpable.

We find that petitioners were unable to satisfactorily explain their failure to oversee the project in its
critical stages. Their defense that corrections were nevertheless employed and that they handled other
projects do not negate their administrative liability. Instead, it is indicative of a conscious design to delegate
the vital task incumbent upon them as engineers whose appointment to such position is by reason of their
academic preparation and work experience to conceptualize, plan, implement and manage a development
project of the government. The responsibility of overseeing the implementation of the Inaclagan
project is lodged with the petitioners. They were to ensure adherence by the contractor to the
approved plans, specifications, and accepted engineering methods. In fact, as project engineer,
Brucal's tasks, as spelled out in the Manual on Infrastructure Projects, include monitoring slippages
and non-compliance of the contractor with approved plans and specifications. Evidently, they failed
to timely perform their assigned duties with dedication, efficiency, and utmost responsibility, ideals
which men and women in public service ought to cherish and dutifully observe.

FALLO

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated
June 22, 2001 and November 20, 2001, respectively, finding Engr. Florentino R. Brucal and Cesar A. Cruz
liable for Gross Neglect of Duty and imposing the penalty of dismissal from the service, are AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION, such that the portion dealing with cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of leave credits and
retirement benefits and disqualification for reemployment in the Government Service is DELETED. Costs
against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.