By Rey Panaligan The Supreme Court (SC) has ordered the immediate reinstatement of Supt. Ermilando O. Villafuerte who was earlier dismissed by the Office of the Ombudsman in connection with the alleged anomalous purchase of three helicopters in 2009 by the Philippine National Police (PNP). In a decision written by Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, the SC said Villafuerte’s reinstatement should be without loss of seniority rights and with payment of backwages and all benefits which would have accrued as if he had not been illegally dismissed. The case against Villafuerte arose from the purchase of three light police operational helicopters (LPOHs) from the Manila Aerospace Products Trading (MAPTRA). Investigation showed that the three helicopters – one fully equipped and two standard units – were not brand new as required by the PNP. Villafuerte, at the time of the purchase, was the legal officer of the national headquarters bids and awards committee (NHQ-BAC). The Office of the Ombudsman ordered his dismissal from the service for serious dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. He appealed his dismissal before the Court of Appeals which reversed the Office of the Ombudsman as it ordered his reinstatement to his PNP rank. The CA decision was appealed to the SC. A summary of the decision given by the SC’s public information office (PIO) stated that the PNP-Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (PNP-CIDG) imputed liability on Villafuerte on the simple fact that the award of the contract to MAPTRA was made through the documents that he drafted. In his defense, Villafuerte said his duties and functions as a member of the BAC secretariat are merely administrative and ministerial in nature and that he was merely following the instructions of his superiors. He said it is the technical working group of the NHQ-BAC that has the duty and responsibility to verify whether a proponent is indeed technically, legally, and financially capable to enter into a contract with the PNP. The PIO said the SC called an “egregious error” the PNP-CIDG’s imputation, stressing that “petitioner cannot judge respondent Villafuerte’s actions based on the end result of the document draft….” “Based on the foregoing, petitioner (PNP-CIDG) of the Ombudsman) miserably failed to establish a nexus between the ministerial act of drafting the said documents and a scheme to defraud the Government,” it said. Quoting from the decision, the PIO also said the SC found “untenable and simply unfair” petitioner PNP-CIDG’s insistence of holding Villafuerte liable even if it does not contest the CA’s finding that the latter’s duties as member of the BAC Secretariat are ministerial in nature. “Neither can dishonesty or conduct prejudicial to the service be attributed to respondent Villafuerte by the mere fact that he drafted Negotiation Committee Resolution No. 2009-04 recommending the award of the contract to MAPTRA as a sole proprietorship,” the PIO quoted from the decision. “All told, the Court is not prepared to punish respondent Villafuerte for merely discharging the ministerial functions of his office as Member of the BAC Secretariat, especially when such acts were made pursuant to the instructions of his superiors,” the PIO also said. On the issue of immediate reinstatement of Villafuerte, the PIO summary of the decision stated: “… in case of exoneration, such a decision must perforce be immediately executory, notwithstanding an appeal that may be lodged by the Ombudsman with the Court. The Court finds such rule necessary to fulfil the interests of justice and fairness, given that not only the livelihoods of our public servants are at stake, but likewise the efficient operations of government as a whole.”