The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Dominador C. Ferrer, Jr., Administrator of the Intramuros Administration (IA), for violating Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The Court found Ferrer guilty beyond reasonable doubt for giving unwarranted benefits to Offshore Construction and Development Company (OCDC) by allowing construction without the necessary permits. This decision underscores the responsibility of public officials to ensure strict compliance with regulations, especially when dealing with historically significant sites, and highlights the legal repercussions of failing to uphold these duties.

Intramuros Walls: When Preservation Collides with Unwarranted Construction

This case revolves around the actions of Dominador C. Ferrer, Jr., then the Administrator of the Intramuros Administration (IA), and his role in granting unwarranted benefits to Offshore Construction and Development Company (OCDC). The core legal question is whether Ferrer violated Section 3(e) of the Republic Act No. (RA) 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, by allowing OCDC to commence construction on the Intramuros Walls without the necessary permits and clearances. The prosecution argued that Ferrer’s actions constituted gross inexcusable negligence, resulting in unwarranted benefits to OCDC and damage to public interest, particularly concerning the preservation of Intramuros as a historical site.

The case originated from an Information charging Ferrer with violating Section 3(e) of RA 3019, which prohibits public officers from causing undue injury to the government or giving unwarranted benefits to any private party through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. The Information specifically alleged that Ferrer, as IA Administrator, awarded lease contracts to OCDC involving Baluarte de San Andres, R[e]vellin de Recolletos, and Baluarte de San Francisco de Dilao without conducting a public bidding, and by allowing the construction of new structures without the required permits.

Witnesses for the prosecution testified that OCDC presented plans for developing structures on top of the Intramuros Walls, but the Technical Committee disapproved them due to concerns about the Walls’ integrity and violation of heritage site conservation laws. Despite this disapproval, OCDC commenced construction without obtaining the necessary building permits or clearances. Further inspection revealed damage to the Walls due to the installation of air conditioning units and the addition of concrete for a mezzanine. Victor B. Reyes, head of the Urban Planning and Community Development Division, testified that OCDC was not listed among the recipients of building permits and that Ferrer failed to sign a Notice of Violation addressed to OCDC.

Ferrer, in his defense, pleaded “not guilty” and argued that the lease contracts with OCDC were entered into at the instance of the Department of Tourism (DoT) Secretary Gemma Cruz-Araneta. He claimed that the Secretary assured him she would also sign the contracts. He also stated that upon receiving reports of OCDC’s violations, he visited the site and issued a Notice of Demolition. Furthermore, Ferrer asserted that the required clearances under the Intramuros Charter were issued to OCDC. However, the Sandiganbayan (SB) found Ferrer guilty beyond reasonable doubt, sentencing him to imprisonment and perpetual disqualification from public office.

The SB ruled that while no public bidding was required for the lease contracts, Ferrer exhibited gross inexcusable negligence by allowing construction without the approval of the Technical Committee, a prerequisite for obtaining a building permit. This negligence, according to the SB, gave OCDC an undue advantage, allowing them to enter the leased properties and commence construction activities. The Supreme Court, in its review, upheld the SB’s decision, emphasizing that the elements constituting a violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 were sufficiently established.

Section 3(e) of RA 3019 explicitly states:

Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. – In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:

x x x x

(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.

The elements of this violation are: (a) the accused is a public officer; (b) they acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or inexcusable negligence; and (c) their action caused undue injury or gave unwarranted benefits. The Supreme Court found that Ferrer, as the IA Administrator, was indeed a public officer who acted with gross inexcusable negligence by allowing OCDC to construct without permits. This action gave OCDC unwarranted benefits, to the detriment of the public interest in preserving Intramuros. The Court underscored that Ferrer was presumed aware of the requirements for construction on the Intramuros Walls, as the lease agreement itself mandated assistance in securing necessary permits.

Moreover, the Court emphasized that even if a development clearance was belatedly granted, the construction was already significantly advanced, reaching 75% completion. This underscored the negligence in allowing the construction to proceed without the necessary prior approvals. The Supreme Court cited its definition of gross negligence:

Gross negligence has been defined as “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.”

The Court concluded that it found no reason to overturn the SB’s findings, as there was no evidence that the SB overlooked or misapplied the facts. It reiterated that appeals from the SB are limited to questions of law, and the SB’s findings on matters of fact are generally conclusive. Therefore, Ferrer’s conviction for violating Section 3(e) of RA 3019 was affirmed. The decision serves as a stern reminder to public officials of their duty to uphold the law and protect public interest, especially in cases involving historical preservation.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Dominador C. Ferrer, Jr., as Administrator of the Intramuros Administration, violated Section 3(e) of RA 3019 by allowing construction on the Intramuros Walls without the necessary permits, thereby giving unwarranted benefits to a private company.
What is Section 3(e) of RA 3019?	Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act prohibits public officers from causing undue injury to any party, including the government, or giving any private party unwarranted benefits through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.
What was Ferrer’s defense?	Ferrer argued that the lease contracts were initiated by the Department of Tourism Secretary, that he issued a Notice of Demolition upon learning of the violations, and that the required clearances were eventually issued to the construction company.
Why did the Sandiganbayan convict Ferrer?	The Sandiganbayan convicted Ferrer because he exhibited gross inexcusable negligence by allowing construction to proceed without the required permits and clearances, which is a violation of the anti-graft law. This negligence provided unwarranted benefits to the construction company.
What is gross inexcusable negligence?	Gross inexcusable negligence is defined as 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.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling?	The Supreme Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s decision, finding that Ferrer was guilty of violating Section 3(e) of RA 3019 because he acted with gross inexcusable negligence, giving unwarranted benefits to the construction company.
What were the penalties imposed on Ferrer?	Ferrer was sentenced to imprisonment for an indeterminate period of six (6) years and one (1) month, as minimum, to ten (10) years, as maximum, with perpetual disqualification from public office.
What is the significance of this case?	The case emphasizes the responsibility of public officials to ensure strict compliance with regulations, especially when dealing with historically significant sites, and highlights the legal repercussions of failing to uphold these duties.

This case serves as a crucial reminder to public officials of their duty to uphold the law and protect public interest, especially in cases involving historical preservation. Public servants must diligently ensure compliance with all regulatory requirements to prevent any undue advantage to private parties and to safeguard the nation’s cultural heritage.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: DOMINADOR C. FERRER, JR. v. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 240209, June 10, 2019