AM 17 12 02 SC CAguioa (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. No. 17-12-02-SC, August 29, 2023
RE: CONSULTANCY SERVICES OF HELEN P. MACASAET. SEPARATE CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION, CAGUIOA, J.
FACTS
This administrative matter concerns the validity of eight Contracts of Services between Ms. Helen P. Macasaet and the Supreme Court for consultancy services related to the Court’s Enterprise Information Systems Plan (EISP). A July 16, 2019 Resolution (the assailed Resolution) declared these contracts void on several grounds, including: 1) lack of authority of the government signatory (Atty. Eden Candelaria, the former Chief Administrative Officer); 2) lack of qualifications of Ms. Macasaet; 3) excessive consultancy fees; 4) incurrence of obligation and expenditure of public funds without proper appropriation; and 5) absence of required Certificates of Availability of Funds (CAFs). However, the ponencia (the main opinion) in the present resolution recognized that the contracts were entered into in good faith and that Ms. Macasaet should be compensated on the basis of quantum meruit. Justice Caguioa, in this Separate Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, agrees with the good faith finding and the grant of compensation but dissents from the ruling that the contracts are void, maintaining instead that they are valid.
ISSUE
Whether the Separate Concurring and Dissenting Opinion agrees with the ponencia’s findings and disposition regarding the validity of the subject contracts, the good faith of the parties, and the compensation for Ms. Macasaet.
RULING
Justice Caguioa’s opinion CONCURS IN PART and DISSENTS IN PART from the ponencia.
1. On the Validity of the Contracts (DISSENT): Justice Caguioa maintains his dissent from the assailed Resolution’s finding that the contracts are void. He asserts there are sufficient legal bases to declare them valid, arguing that: (a) the contracts were covered by Annual Procurement Plans (APPs) as required by R.A. 9184; (b) the procurement followed R.A. 9184 and its IRR, including the Bids and Awards Committee for Consultancy Services (BAC-CS) participation in the Negotiated Procurement process; (c) there were no infirmities in the consultancy fees; (d) the requirement for Certificates of Availability of Funds (CAFs) was met; (e) there was no splitting of contracts; and (f) Atty. Candelaria had the authority to sign the contracts on behalf of the Court.
2. On Good Faith and Compensation (CONCURRENCE): Justice Caguioa welcomes the ponencia’s unanimous ruling that the subject contracts were entered into in good faith by the Court officials involved and Ms. Macasaet, and that Ms. Macasaet should be compensated on the basis of quantum meruit.
* Regarding the Signatory’s Authority: He argues that Atty. Candelaria acted in good faith, with ample basis to believe she was authorized. He contends the Chief Justice is the Head of the Procuring Entity for the Judiciary, not the Court En Banc, and that Atty. Candelaria had both implied and express written authority (via an action slip from the Office of the Chief Justice) to sign the contracts.
* Regarding Consultant’s Qualifications: He disputes the finding that Ms. Macasaet was unqualified or that the work was not highly technical. He argues the EISP project, involving a comprehensive framework for Judiciary ICT initiatives, was inherently highly technical and policy-determining, and that negotiated procurement for highly technical consultants is expressly allowed under the law when the government lacks the organic capacity.
* Regarding Compensation: While concurring that compensation on quantum meruit is proper, he submits that the amounts originally stipulated in the subject contracts should already be considered reasonable and sufficient to satisfy quantum meruit, given the highly technical nature of the services and their value to the Court.
In conclusion, Justice Caguioa maintains his position that the subject contracts are valid but concurs with the Court’s recognition of the parties’ good faith and the directive to compensate Ms. Macasaet, preferably using the contract amounts as the reasonable measure for quantum meruit.