A.M. No. P-04-1818 - Badoles-Algodon vs. Zaldivar

In 2004, the municipality of Barugo, Leyte, directly purchased 3,900 liters of "Fil-Ocean" liquid fertilizers for ₱1,950,000.00 from Bals Enterprises.
The fertilizers were destined for distribution among qualified farmer-residents under the Farm Inputs/Farm Implements Program of the Department of Agriculture (DA).

Bals Enterprises allegedly completed delivery of the fertilizers on May 20, 2004, which was acknowledged by the municipality through an Inspection and Acceptance Report.
On post-audit, the Commission on Audit (COA) disallowed the purchase, issuing Notice of Disallowance (ND) No. 05-131-101 (04) on December 5, 2005, citing numerous violations of Republic Act (RA) No. 9184.

Failing to hold the required pre-bid conference as mandated under Section 22 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA No. 9184.
Not conducting a re-bidding after the first failed bidding in violation of Section 35(a) of the IRR.
Not submitting bidding documents as required under Section 17, Rule VI, of the IRR.

Mayor Juliana A. Villasin – for certifying the legality and necessity of the expense under her direct supervision and for approving payment.
Mr. Aluino O. Ala, municipal accountant – for certifying supporting documents and allowing the transaction to proceed in the pre-audit phase.
Mr. Gil Acuin, DA technologist – for overseeing the distribution of the fertilizers and preparing the delivery report.
The chairman and the members of the municipality’s Bids and Awards Committee (BAC), though later excluded after COA determined that they did not participate in the procurement.

Initially, all named persons filed for exclusion from liability; however, only the chairman and BAC members were exonerated as they were bypassed in the procurement process.
Villasin, Ala, and Acuin appealed the ND to COA’s Legal Adjudication Office (LAO) on the basis that the direct purchase was justified due to a failed previous bidding; the appeal was denied on January 24, 2007.
Subsequent appeals to the COA Commission proper were rendered in Decision No. 2009-101 on October 14, 2009, which upheld the disallowance on the ground that no bona fide public bidding was conducted.

Petitioner Reynaldo A. Bodo, Municipal Agriculturist and the signatory of the purchase request, was later added as a party liable based on COA’s finding of his contributory role in the procurement irregularity.
A Supplemental Notice of Disallowance (ND No. 10-001-101 (04)) was issued on April 15, 2010, including him among the liable parties.
Petitioner appealed the supplemental ND; on July 24, 2013, COA RO No. VIII denied his appeal, and further appeal to the COA Commission proper on November 9, 2016, was also denied.

Petitioner contended that his role was merely as a signatory of the purchase request and that he did not control or participate in the decision to direct contract the fertilizers, thereby distancing himself from the irregularities.
He argued that since the purchase was disallowed due to the irregular procurement mode, only those directly responsible for the irregularity should be held liable.

Whether the inclusion of petitioner Reynaldo A. Bodo among those liable for the disallowed fertilizer purchase is proper, given that his role was limited to signing the purchase request.

Does being the requisitioning officer who signed the purchase request equate to having control over or direct involvement in the procurement decision?
Can mere participation as the signatory of a purchase request render an officer civilly liable for the entire disallowed amount?

Whether COA committed grave abuse of discretion in holding petitioner solidarily liable for the full disallowed sum of ₱1,950,000.00.

Should the principle of quantum meruit apply to reduce the civil liability of petitioner and his solidary co-debtors?
How should the determination of the “reasonable value” of goods received by the municipality affect the final civil liability computation?

The adequacy of applying the established administrative and procurement rules on the roles and responsibilities of government officials involved in irregular transactions.

Is the convergence of Section 43 of Book VI and Sections 38 and 39 of Book I of the 1987 Administrative Code correctly interpreted in holding even indirectly involved officials liable if bad faith or gross negligence is found?
How does the doctrine on the civil liability of government officers who contribute to unlawful expenditures relate to the petitioner’s circumstances?