Case Digest (G.R. No. 94476)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 94476)
Facts:
Micaela C. Andres and Arnulfo M. Purisima v. The Honorable Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 94476, September 26, 1991, the Supreme Court En Banc, Narvasa, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Micaela C. Andres (Division Superintendent, DECS La Union) and Arnulfo M. Purisima (Special Disbursing Officer) challenged the Commission on Audit’s (COA) December 21, 1989 Decision No. 1271, which declined to overrule the regional auditor’s disallowance of payment for 1,838 school desks manufactured and delivered pursuant to negotiated contracts with three state vocational institutions.
In 1987 the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) launched a desk project under the President’s Community Employment and Development Program (CEDP). Implementing Guidelines authorized two procurement modes—negotiated contracts with capable vocational institutions or local competitive bidding—and instructed regional offices to give preference to negotiated contracts. A Region I conference on September 4, 1987 fixed approved agency estimates and allocated specific numbers of desks to particular vocational schools and divisions.
Acting on those agreements, on September 8, 1987 the La Union Division (through Superintendent Andres) entered into separate contracts with the Benguet School of Arts & Trades, the University of Northern Philippines, and Don Mariano Marcos Memorial State University (DMMMSU-CET) to manufacture and deliver desks at P414.88 per unit. The contracts were recommended by the Regional Director and approved by the Secretary of DECS. Vouchers for 60% advance payments were issued.
The Acting Auditor, DECS La Union, Pedro L. Limos, suspended and then disallowed the vouchers, relying on a COA Technical Services Office communication comparing the unit price to Metro Manila price findings (P300.00 as of May 1988) and invoking COA Circular 85-55-A (public bidding rule). Petitioners sought reconsideration and the Regional Director recommended lifting the disallowance, but COA issued Decision No. 1271 affirming the disallowance on grounds that procurement by negotiation should be exceptional and public bidding is preferred.
Petitioners filed a petition to the Supreme Court seeking nullification of COA Decision No. 1271, arguing in substance that: (1) Executive Order No. 301 authorized negotiated procurement under the circumstances; (2) they acted in good faith following national guidelines; (3) the COA price comparison was arbitrary; and (4) COA’s action was discriminatory because other divisions in Region I were not disallowed. The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the COA decision.
Issues:
- Was the COA justified in disallowing payment for the desks procured by negotiated contracts?
- Did Executive Order No. 301 and the DECS implementing guidelines permit the negotiated contracts in this case, thereby validating the transactions?
- Were petitioners personally liable for the disallowed expenditures on grounds of grave abuse, bad faith, or irregularity sufficient to sustain COA’s action?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)