Title
Supreme Court
Avancea et al. vs. Commission on Audit
Case
G.R. No. 254337
Decision Date
Jun 18, 2024
A group of municipal officials challenged COA disallowances on their procurement practices, but the Supreme Court upheld the findings of violations of procurement laws, holding them accountable for disallowed expenditures.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 88167)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties Involved
    • Petitioners: Nelson R. AvanceAa, Henry V. Palarca, Nida B. Tolentino, Teodora M. De Guzman, Jerry V. Calamba, and Rodel B. Lobaton – Officials and employees of the Municipality of Dr. Jose P. Rizal, Palawan, and designated members and secretariat of its Bids and Awards Committee (BAC).
    • Respondents: Commission on Audit (COA) Proper and Ma. Corazon S. Gomez, Regional Director of COA Regional Office No. IV-B (MIMAROPA).
  • Procurement Activities and BAC Resolutions
    • From September to December 2014, the Municipality conducted multiple procurements from four merchants using Small Value Procurement (SVP), under BAC Resolutions Nos. 2014-01-03, 2014-01-04, 2014-01-13, and 2014-04-34.
    • These Resolutions recommended using SVP for procurements related to the Women’s Day celebration, Biri-Birian Program, 31st Founding Anniversary celebration, and Baragatan Festival 2014, with amounts not exceeding PHP 100,000.00 per transaction.
  • Notices of Disallowance by COA Regional Office
    • The COA Regional Office issued eight Notices of Disallowance dated January 11, 2017, totaling PHP 8,191,695.83, citing violations such as:
      • Non-submission of documents required by Notices of Suspension.
      • Violations of Republic Act No. 9184 (Government Procurement Reform Act) and its 2009 Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR).
      • Inclusion of brand names in purchase requests, violating Section 18 of RA 9184.
      • Splitting of contracts to evade public bidding under Section 54.1 of the IRR.
      • Unjustified resort to SVP for readily available goods contradicting Sections 53.9 and 52 of the IRR.
      • Lack of certification from the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) Procurement Service regarding the availability of goods.
  • Roles and Liabilities of Individual Petitioners
    • Various municipal officials and BAC members were implicated for different acts such as signing disbursement vouchers, obligation requests, purchase orders, acceptance reports, and failure to comply with procurement guidelines.
    • Nelson R. AvanceAa was the head of the BAC Secretariat.
  • COA Regional Office Decision
    • The COA RO IV-B affirmed the Notices of Disallowance and denied the petitioners’ appeal.
    • Findings included undocumented or improperly referenced purchase orders and failure to comply with SVP procedures, including lack of request for quotations (RFQ) sent to at least three qualified suppliers and non-compliance with posting requirements on the Philippine Government Electronic Procurement System (PhilGEPS).
    • The procurements involved ordinary office supplies, inappropriate for SVP.
  • COA Commission Proper Decision
    • The COA Commission Proper denied the Petition for Review dated January 31, 2020, affirming the regional office's findings with modification by excluding Senior Bookkeeper Edgardo P. Cayaon from liability.
    • The Commission emphasized the BAC’s duty to ensure procurement adherence to RA 9184 and IRR standards, ruling that the BAC indeed violated procurement laws by recommending SVP without justification.
  • Petitioners’ Arguments Before the Supreme Court
    • Only PHP 1,131,925.04 of the total disallowed amount pertained to the four BAC Resolutions; other expenditures were unrelated or official by others.
    • Submitted certification claiming funds were appropriated in the Annual Procurement Plan (APP) for the events.
    • Claimed time constraints justified the use of SVP since purchase orders were received shortly before the scheduled events.
    • Maintained all purchase orders were below the PHP 100,000.00 threshold.
    • Asserted poor internet connection prevented posting on PhilGEPS.
    • Denied splitting of contracts, asserting purchase requests were properly approved and each below the prescribed thresholds.
  • COA and Respondents' Position
    • Petitioners failed to file a motion for reconsideration rendering the petition defective.
    • Findings of fact by COA are final and non-reviewable.
    • Petitioners’ resort to SVP was unjustified, and they may be held jointly and severally liable.

Issues:

  • Whether the COA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in holding the petitioners liable for the Notices of Disallowance.
  • Whether the BAC's resort to Small Value Procurement was justified under the circumstances.
  • Whether the splitting of government contracts occurred to circumvent competitive bidding requirements.
  • Whether the BAC Secretariat head, Nelson R. AvanceAa, should be held liable.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.