National power corporation v. tanfelix

The Facts and the Case On April 7, 1997 the President of petitioner National Power Corporation (NAP) filed an administrative action against respondent Roding A. Tangible, a Supervising Mechanical Engineer, for rigging the bidding for the construction of the wind break fence of its thermal power plant’s coal storage in Calla, Battings. After hearing, the Nap’s Board of Inquiry and Discipline (BID) found Tangible guilty of grave misconduct for rigging the bidding to favor LLC Industries, Inc. LLC), one of the five pre-qualified contractors. Two witnesses, the board chairman of one of the losing bidders, Lye Construction and Development Corp.. LCD), and the head of the latter’s engineering department, testified that Tentacle Invited the pre-qualified bidders too restaurant meeting and offered Pl million each to four of them In exchange for letting LLC win the bidding. He also built into the successful bid a PA bid could make it big.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Days later, the heads of LLC and LCD met and signed in Tentacle’s presence a memorandum of agreement that embodied the bid-rigging deal between the two companies. LLC won the bidding. With this finding, the NAP discipline board ordered Tangible dismissed from the service. On November 9, 1999, acting on Tentacle’s appeal, the Civil Service Commission SC) rendered a decision, affirming the NAP-BID ruling. But, on motion for reconsideration, the SC reversed itself and exonerated Tangible in a resolution dated December 21, 2000.

The SC ruled in the main that the misconduct which warrants removal must have direct relation to and be connected with the performance of official duties. As it happened, Tangible was neither a member of the NAP bids committee nor was there any proof that he influenced the members of that committee. The NAP appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) but on October 18, 2001 the latter affirmed the ultimate ruling of the SC. The NAP questions the CA decision before his Court.

The Issue Presented The issue in this case is whether or not the CA, like the SC, correctly absolved Tangible of any administrative liability for rigging the bids on an NAP construction contract since he was not a member of the bids committee that awarded it to a pre- selected bidder. Argument It is unmistakable from the evidence that Tangible wrongfully and unlawfully used his station or reputation as NAP Supervising Mechanical Engineer to rig the bids for an NAP construction project. Although he was not a member of Nap’s bids committee, he was Nap’s supervising mechanical engineer.

Undoubtedly, Tangible misused his ignition to gain access to information on construction projects that were up for bidding and to the NAP staffs involved in them. And he misused his reputation and credibility as ranking NAP officer to bring the pre-qualified bidders together in a restaurant to hammer out with them a scheme for cheating NAP of a large sum of money, the result of rigged bids. It is of course true, as the SC suggested, that the evidence fails to show that Tangible tried to influence the members of the bids committee.

But there was really no need to influence them since Tangible already succeeded in rigging the bids among the re-qualified bidders, leaving the bids committee no choice but to award the contract to LLC. Grave misconduct, of which Tangible has been charged, consists in a government official’s deliberate violation off rule of law or standard of behavior. It is regarded as grave when the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules are present. 1] In particular, corruption as an element of grave misconduct consists in the official’s unlawful and wrongful use of his station or character [reputation] [2] to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others. [3] Rigging by a public official at a bidding in the organization where he belongs is a specie of corruption. As a public officer, Tangible had the duty to protect the process of public bidding in ceremony. It is the accepted method for arriving at a fair and reasonable price.