Title
D.M. Consunji, Inc. vs. Commission on Audit
Case
G.R. No. 94913
Decision Date
Jul 23, 1991
MWSS awarded a bidded contract to D.M. Consunji, Inc. after Erectors, Inc. withdrew. COA disallowed price escalation payments, but SC ruled it was a bidded contract and no overpayment occurred.
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 220884)

Background of the Contract

In March 1981, the MWSS advertised the opportunity for bids related to Contract No. PS-1, which was partially funded by a loan from the Asian Development Bank. On May 27, 1981, an international competitive bidding was conducted, wherein D.M. Consunji, Incorporated (the petitioner) was one of the bidders, alongside A.L. Sarmiento and Erectors, Inc. Upon evaluation, A.L. Sarmiento was disqualified for non-compliance, and Erectors, Inc., the second lowest bidder, was awarded the contract but ultimately withdrew. Following this, MWSS offered the contract to D.M. Consunji on August 9, 1982, which the petitioner accepted with modifications.

Contract Approval and Execution

The MWSS Board of Trustees awarded the contract to D.M. Consunji on October 1, 1982, at an amount of P71,943,000. The parties executed the formal contract on December 14, 1982, which was subsequently approved by the President. The petitioner commenced work on April 3, 1983, and completed the project ahead of schedule on August 26, 1985. The petitioner was granted an incentive bonus and received payment for price escalation amounting to P24,883,439.71.

Notice of Audit Disallowance

In March 1988, the MWSS Corporate Auditor issued Notice of Audit Disallowance No. FA-001, alleging that the petitioner was overpaid P3,900,605.45 in price escalation. The auditor's rationale centered on the incorrect computation of the reckoning date for the escalation, contending that it should begin from October 1, 1982, rather than May 27, 1981—the date of bidding.

Petitioner's Position

In response, the petitioner contended that the price escalation already accounted for the period from May 1981 to September 1982 within the contract price, and asserted that subsequent escalation should indeed be reckoned from October 1, 1982. The petitioner appealed to the COA, arguing that its understanding of the price escalation was consistent with prevailing regulations and that it had not received any overpayment.

COA's Decision

On August 18, 1989, COA dismissed the petitioner's appeal, reasoning that the contract was not a bidded contract but a negotiated one due to the circumstances surrounding the awarding of the contract after the other bidders either failed to comply or withdrew. This conclusion implied the necessity of Presidential authority for a negotiated contract.

Supreme Court's Analysis

The Supreme Court focused on whether Contract No. PS-1 was ultimately a bidded or negotiated contract. The Court emphasized that the MWSS must follow a two-step process: the initial public bidding and, if necessary, a negotiated arrangement upon the failure of that bidding. It found that there was no evidence supporting a failure of public bidding that would warrant negotiation; hence, the contract should be deemed as a bidded contract.

Decision on Price Escalation

The Court ruled that the date for price escalation should be reckoned from May 27, 1981—the date of bidding—reaffirming

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.