Case Summary (G.R. No. 254337)
Nature of the Case
This matter involves a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court aimed at annulling the COA Commission Proper's Decision No. 2020-341, which upheld Notices of Disallowance concerning the procurement of various office supplies, food, and other items carried out by the Municipality amounting to PHP 8,191,695.83.
Facts of the Case
Avanceña et al. are officials of the Municipality and members of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC). They utilized Small Value Procurement for several purchases from September to December 2014, guided by BAC Resolutions allowing for such procurement methods. However, the COA issued Notices of Disallowance based on various procedural violations, including the division of contracts to evade public bidding requirements.
COA Regional Office Findings
The COA Regional Office concluded that Avanceña et al. failed to comply with the necessary procurement procedures. They did not properly follow mandatory steps under the Philippine Government Electronic Procurement System (PhilGEPS) and had undated purchase orders that lacked the required information. The Regional Office maintained that the purchases made did not qualify under Small Value Procurement parameters.
COA Commission Proper's Ruling
The COA Commission Proper affirmed the Regional Office's findings, emphasizing that the recommended Small Value Procurement was unwarranted and violated procurement rules. The procurement did not align with the Annual Procurement Plan (APP) and failed to meet the criteria for using alternative procurement methods.
Petitioner's Arguments
Avanceña et al. filed the present petition, arguing that the COA had committed grave abuse of discretion by ignoring critical points about the claims of procurement irregularities, the non-justified allegations of splitting contracts, and asserted that they acted within the appropriate boundaries of procurement law. They contended that the expenditures exceeded the totality of PHP 1,131,925.04 rather than the noted PHP 8,191,695.83 cited in disallowances.
Procedural Issues
The case includes procedural questions, particularly the failure of Avanceña et al. to file a motion for reconsideration before advancing to certiorari. Despite procedural flaws, the court addressed the matter due to public interest in the effective administration of government procurement.
Court's Decision on Liability
The Supreme Court determined that while Avanceña, as BAC Secretariat, was absolved of liability, the other petitioners were liable for their roles in the procurement violations. Notably, the Court cited their neglect to adhere to mandatory procurement procedures as a basis for their accountability, drawing attention to the fo
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 254337)
Facts of the Case
- Petitioners are officials and employees of the Municipality of Dr. Jose P. Rizal, Palawan and members/secretariat of its Bids and Awards Committee (BAC).
- From September to December 2014, the Municipality made procurement through Small Value Procurement based on four BAC resolutions recommending such procurement mode for events like the Women’s Day Celebration, Biri-Birian Program, Founding Anniversary, and Baragatan Festival.
- Notices of Disallowance were issued by the COA Regional Office IV-B on grounds including non-compliance with RA 9184 and its IRR, splitting of contracts, improper use of Small Value Procurement, and lack of necessary certifications.
- The total procurement involved amounts to PHP 8,191,695.83.
- The BAC Resolutions were broad, authorizing Small Value Procurement without specifying particular purchase requests.
Legal and Procedural Background
- The Petition is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court seeking annulment of COA Commission Proper Decision No. 2020-341 affirming COA RO IV-B Decision No. 2018-29.
- The COA Rules and RA 9184 govern the procurement process and disallowances.
- Petitioners did not file a motion for reconsideration before filing the petition; however, the Court chose to relax strict procedural rules due to public interest issues.
Issues Presented
- Whether COA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it held petitioners liable for the Notices of Disallowance.
- Whether the procurement through Small Value Procurement was justified.
- Whether there was splitting of contracts to circumvent competitive bidding.
- Whether petitioners’ roles as BAC members and secretariat expose them to liability for the disallowed amounts.
The COA Regional Office IV-B Findings
- The supporting procurement documents lacked required data such as dates and reference numbers.
- Petitioners failed to comply with procedural requirements for Small Value Procurement:
- No requests for quotations (RFQs) were sent to at least three suppliers.
- Non-compliance with posting requirements on the PhilGEPS website.
- No evidence of unforeseen contingencies justifying limited RFQ or posting dispensation.
- The goods procured were ordinary or regular supplies, making Small Value Procurement inappropriate.
- There was evidence of splitting contracts to circumvent bidding requirements.
The COA Commission Proper Decision
- Affirmed the Regional Office’s findings with modification excluding one official (Edgardo P. Cayaon) from liability.
- Confirmed that the procurement for festivals was not included in the APP or Revised APP except for Biri-Birian Program.
- Declared petitioners liable for failing to ensure adherence to procurement laws.
- Emphasized that the BAC is responsible for ensuring compliance with RA 9184 and its IRR.
Petitioners’ Arguments
- BAC Resolutions covered only aggregate procurement o