Title
Ferdez vs. Commission on Audit
Case
G.R. No. 205389
Decision Date
Nov 19, 2019
The case involves COA disallowances of P26.99M for a computerization project and P2.37M for overpriced liquid fertilizers by Talisay City, Cebu. SC upheld COA, citing lack of documentation, procurement violations, and overpricing, but ruled quantum meruit for the computerization project.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 205389)

Antecedents

The case involves two procurement contracts executed by the City Government of Talisay: (1) a computerization project from 2002 to 2003, awarded to PowerDev Corporation, and (2) the purchase of liquid fertilizers from 2005 to 2006. The computerization project, based on alleged public bidding, was scrutinized by the COA's Audit Team Leader due to observed deficiencies, including lack of essential documentation. Notices of Suspension and subsequently Notices of Disallowance were issued for these projects, resulting in the auditing body's refusal to authorize related payments.

The COA's Findings

The COA's investigation led to significant findings regarding both projects. For the computerization project, it was determined that the necessary public biddings were never conducted as required by RA 9184. Despite the petitioner's claims of adherence to proper procedures, the COA refuted this, noting that agreements and proposals were executed prior to any advertised bidding, contradicting the requisite legal process. Furthermore, the absence of a valid appropriation ordinance for the budget realignment was highlighted as a violation of municipal fiscal regulations.

Issues Presented

The petition raised three principal errors:

  1. Due Process Violation: Petitioner argued that the COA deprived them of due process when it forwarded their appeal to the Commission Proper rather than addressing it at the regional level.
  2. Disallowance of Payments: Petitioner contested the COA's decisions to disallow payments to PowerDev based on a purported lack of adherence to procurement requirements.
  3. Liability for Fertilizer Overpricing: The decision holding the petitioner and others liable for overpricing in fertilizer procurement was also challenged.

Ruling on Due Process

The Court ruled that due process was not violated. The COA's procedure, particularly in forwarding the matter to the Commission Proper for review, fell within its discretion due to the unique circumstances of the case. The petitioner and co-respondents were given a proper opportunity to be heard through the appeals process, including a motion for reconsideration that was duly considered.

Ruling on Disallowance of Payments

The Court upheld the COA's disallowance related to the computerization project, reasserting that the absence of proper bidding procedures constituted a material breach of protocol mandated by RA 9184. Since there was no valid justification for the contract's execution outside of the competitive bidding process, the payments made to PowerDev were deemed unauthorized.

Ruling on Fertilizer Overpricing

Regarding the purchase of liquid fertilizers, the court supported the COA’s finding of significant overpricing. The audit conducted revealed that the price paid was excessively out of line with prevailing market rates, leading to unmerited liability on behalf of public officials involved in the procurement process.

Good Faith Defense

The Court clarified that while public officials are generally presumed to act in good faith, such presumptions do not apply when explicit statutory requirements are ignored. Consequently, good faith could not be invoked as a defense for the violations noted in the procurement processes. The lack of competitive bidding

...continue reading

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