Case Summary (G.R. No. 228607)
Background of the Purchase and Notice of Disallowance
In 2004, the municipality of Barugo executed a direct purchase of 3,900 liters of "Fil-Ocean" liquid fertilizers costing P1,950,000 from Bals Enterprises, intended for distribution to qualified farmer-residents under the Department of Agriculture's program. However, post-audit reviews initiated by COA led to the issuance of Notice of Disallowance (ND) No. 05-131-101 (04) on December 5, 2005. The ND cited violations related to procurement procedures, including the absence of a pre-bid conference, failure to conduct re-bidding, and lack of necessary bidding documents, holding various municipal officials liable.
Appeals and Subsequent Notice of Disallowance
After an initial appeal by implicated municipal officials, including Mayor Juliana A. Villasin and municipal accountant Aluino Ala, a supplemental ND was issued against Bodo, who signed the purchase request. COA upheld the original disallowance in a series of decisions, concluding that the municipality's procurement actions lacked lawful basis as they had bypassed established bidding protocols.
Petitioner’s Arguments in the Petition
Bodo challenged his liability with the argument that he had no control or involvement in the municipality's decision to acquire the fertilizers via direct procurement. He contended that the culpability should lie solely with those who authorized the illegal procurement.
Court's Ruling on Liability
The court clarified that petitioner did not contest the disallowance itself but only his inclusion among the liable officials. It sustained COA’s finding of Bodo's civil liability, establishing that government officers involved in unlawful expenditures may be held accountable if found guilty of bad faith or gross negligence. The court emphasized that Bodo’s role as requisitioning officer afforded him a contributory role in the illegality of the procurement.
Nature of Bodo's Participation and Gross Negligence
Bodo's inclusion as liable was grounded in his signing of the purchase request, a critical step in the procurement process. His actions raised significant procedural red flags, particularly due to the disallowed request's explicit mention of a brand name, which contravened regulations forbidding such specifications. This raised concerns of bias and reinforced the court's finding of gross negligence on Bodo's part.
Solidary Liability Considerations
While affirming COA’s stance on Bodo's civil liability, the court disagreed with the blanket imposition of solidary liability for the entire disallowed amount. Referring
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 228607)
Case Background
- Parties Involved: Reynaldo A. Bodo as the Petitioner and the Commission on Audit (COA) as the Respondent.
- Nature of the Case: The case involves a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, challenging COA Decision No. 2016-316.
- Context of the Disallowance: In 2004, the municipality of Barugo directly purchased 3,900 liters of "Fil-Ocean" liquid fertilizers for P1,950,000.00 from Bals Enterprises, which was intended for distribution to local farmers under a government program.
Initial Disallowance
- Notice of Disallowance Issued: On December 5, 2005, COA Regional Office No. VIII issued Notice of Disallowance (ND) No. 05-131-101 (04) for the purchase, citing violations of Republic Act (RA) No. 9184.
- Key Violations Identified:
- No pre-bid conference was conducted.
- A re-bidding was not carried out following a failed initial bidding.
- Absence of requisite bidding documents.
Accountability and Appeals
- Liable Officials: Mayor Juliana A. Villasin, Municipal Accountant Aluino Ala, DA Technologist Gil Acuin, and the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) were identified as liable.
- Exclusion of BAC Members: Requests for exclusion from liability were made by those named, with the BAC members being excluded after it was determined they were bypassed in the procurement process.
- Subsequent Appeals: Villasin et al. appealed the ND to COA’s Legal Adjudication Office (LAO), which denied their appeal. The decision was upheld by the COA Commission proper.
COA's Findings
- COA Decision No. 2009-101: This decision confirmed the disallowan