Title
Cruz, Jr. vs. Commission on Audit
Case
G.R. No. 210936
Decision Date
Jun 28, 2016
LRTA officials held liable for irregular payment of $58,800 for incomplete motor repairs, but absolved of personal liability due to good faith.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 257427)

Antecedent Facts

Cruz and Alonzo served respectively as the administrator and administrative department manager of the LRTA, while Alday was the General Services Division Manager. The LRTA's Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) awarded a contract for the repair of 23 units of traction motor armatures to TAN-CA International, Inc./Yujin Machinery, Ltd. at a total cost of US$94,800, despite the absence of a formal service repair agreement. The goods were sent to South Korea for repair, but of the 23 units, only 13 were returned, with several being rejected for various reasons.

Audit Findings and Notice of Disallowance

Following a post-audit by the COA, Audit Observation Memorandum No. 2003-001 was issued highlighting serious issues, including the absence of a service repair agreement, premature payment without certification of acceptance from the Engineering Division, and the contractor’s failure to comply with terms on the return of waste materials and the complete repair of the motors. On February 27, 2008, COA issued Notice of Disallowance No. LRTA 2008-005 (2002), disallowing the US$58,800 payment to the contractor, citing a lack of supporting documents and other compliance failures.

Petitioners' Appeal and COA's Ruling

The petitioners appealed the Notice of Disallowance, arguing that the payment was warranted as the repaired units passed a testing phase and claiming a lack of awareness regarding the necessity of a one-year warranty period before payment. They also contended that the disallowance was arbitrary and that their actions were justified, given the urgency of maintaining train operations to avoid greater losses.

COA's Confirmation of Disallowance

In Decision No. 2012-142, COA denied the appeal and upheld the disallowance. The Commission held that the petitioners failed to sufficiently address the audit findings, emphasizing the indivisible nature of the repair contract and the irregularities associated with the payment. COA directed the LRTA Management to take legal action against the contractor or compel compliance with the contractual obligations, including the return of the remaining 10 unrepaired units.

Petition for Certiorari and Respondent's Argument

The petitioners subsequently filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court alleging grave abuse of discretion by COA. They asserted that the disallowance was unwarranted and that they acted in good faith. The respondent defended its position, emphasizing that the petitioners had not adequately resolved the issues raised in the AOM and that they were not privy to the contractor's non-compliance, thus justifying the disallowance

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.