G.R. No. 239313 - Calingasan vs. People

Petitioners, composed of the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) and its officers, filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 to annul and set aside adverse decisions of the Commission on Audit (COA).
The challenged decisions include the COA Regional Office No. III ruling on April 7, 2014, as well as subsequent COA decisions dated December 29, 2015 and December 21, 2016, all of which upheld a Notice of Disallowance (ND) issued on March 26, 2012.

In 2009, the SBMA procured special and field uniforms through regular public bidding. The winning bidder was Topnotch Apparel Corporation; however, the SBMA asserted that the quality of the uniforms was compromised due to the constraints imposed by current procurement laws.
Following internal deliberations and a memorandum by then Human Resource Management Officer Lolita S. Mallari, recommendations were made for adopting an alternative procurement method.

These recommendations included allowing department heads, under the supervision of a newly constituted Uniform Committee, to handle the procurement process following specific guidelines and using a template contract.
The funds for the uniform procurement for CY 2009 were to be placed in a trust fund, and payments to suppliers were to be made only after delivery and acceptance of the uniforms.

On March 26, 2012, the Special Audit Team issued Special Audit ND No. 2012-001(2011), disallowing an expenditure amounting to P2,420,603.99 on the basis that several requirements of R.A. No. 9184 and its IRR were not complied with.

Violations included the non-inclusion of uniform requirements in the Annual Procurement Plans, failure to post procurement information on the PhilGEPs bulletin board, and the conduct of negotiated procurement without the necessary safeguards such as a duly constituted Bids and Awards Committee.

Petitioners, including various SBMA officers and department heads, contested the ND by filing an appeal before COA-Region III. The COA-Region III decision, rendered on April 7, 2014, affirmed the ND.

Petitioners subsequently filed a petition for review before the COA, contending that the filing was timely because the 180-day period, which ended on May 31, 2014 (a Saturday), was properly extended to the next working day—June 2, 2014.
Additional arguments included:

The claim that the alternative procurement method was properly used and justified under special circumstances to obtain the most advantageous price and superior quality.
The assertion that funds pooled in a trust fund for the uniforms remained private in character since they originated from the employees’ uniform allowance.
The emphasis on good faith and transparency in the procurement process as mitigating factors against personal liability.

Whether the petition for review was timely filed considering the 180-day period and the computation rules (including the treatment of weekends as provided under the Rules of Court).

Whether the SBMA’s alternative method of procurement for special and field uniforms complied with the requisites set forth in R.A. No. 9184 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations, particularly concerning the absence of public bidding and the lack of engagement of a duly constituted Bids and Awards Committee.

Whether the pooling of the uniform allowance in a trust fund rendered the funds private or whether they remained public funds subject to the procurement rules of R.A. No. 9184.

Whether the procurement process, as conducted by the petitioners, constitutes an irregular expenditure justifying the disallowance of P2,420,603.99 as maintained by the COA.