Pharmally raps vs DBM exec, others affirmed

“Accountability, there must follow.”

With this pointed reminder, the Court of Appeals (CA) underscored its ruling on the controversial procurement of Covid-19 supplies, even as it partly sided with one official while affirming findings against several others.

In a 49-page decision promulgated on 31 March, the appellate court stressed that corruption during a time of national crisis is a “grievous” betrayal of public trust.

It emphasized that public office must be exercised with integrity, especially amid widespread suffering.

The ruling came as the court affirmed the findings of the Office of the Ombudsman against former Budget Undersecretary Lloyd Christopher Lao and former officials Warren Rex Liong, Christine Marie Suntay, Augusto Ylagan and Amado Tandoc III.

“After a thorough review of the records and petitioners’ respective arguments, we find no sufficient basis to overturn the Ombudsman’s findings with respect to petitioners Lao, Liong, Ylagan, Suntay and Tandoc III,” the court said.

Administrative charges upheld

The CA also upheld the validity of the administrative proceedings, rejecting arguments that referrals from former Senator Richard Gordon and Senator Risa Hontiveros were insufficient to initiate the case.

It clarified that under Ombudsman rules, referrals may be made through authorized members of Congress.

Further, the CA agreed with the Ombudsman that Pharmally Pharmaceutical Corp. lacked the legal, technical, and financial capacity to handle the multimillion-peso contracts it received.

It noted that the firm had only P625,000 in paid-up capital, was incorporated in September 2019, and had no substantial track record to justify the scale of the procurement.

Despite these findings, the CA granted the petition of Procurement official Webster Laureñana, clearing him of administrative liability.

The court said the records were “bereft of substantial evidence” to support accusations of grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, serious dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service against Laureñana.