AM 17 12 02 SC; (August, 2023) (Digest)
A.M. No. 17-12-02-SC, August 29, 2023
RE: CONSULTANCY SERVICES OF HELEN P. MACASAET
FACTS
On July 16, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a Resolution declaring void ab initio eight (8) Contracts of Services entered into with respondent Helen P. Macasaet for Information and Communications Technology consultancy services related to the Court’s Enterprise Information Systems Plan from 2010 to 2014. The Court ordered Macasaet to reimburse the total consultancy fees received, amounting to P11,100,000.00, less taxes withheld, with legal interest. Macasaet filed a Motion for Reconsideration, insisting on the validity of the contracts, arguing good faith, and claiming entitlement to payment for services rendered under the principle of quantum meruit.
ISSUE
Whether the Motion for Reconsideration should be granted, specifically concerning: (1) the validity of the eight Contracts of Services; (2) the liability of Macasaet to reimburse the fees received; and (3) her entitlement to payment for services actually rendered based on quantum meruit.
RULING
The Court granted the Motion for Reconsideration in part.
1. Validity of Contracts and Good Faith: The Court affirmed that the eight Contracts of Services are void due to: (a) lack of proper authority from the Court En Banc by the signatory, Atty. Eden T. Candelaria, violating Sections 4(b) and 5 of Executive Order No. 423 and Administrative Matter No. 99-12-08-SC (Revised); (b) Macasaet’s technical qualifications not meeting government hiring and procurement rules; and (c) absence of Certificates of Availability of Funds for the third to eighth contracts, contrary to the Administrative Code of 1987. However, the Court clarified that Macasaet and all involved Court officials acted in good faith, and their involvement was untainted by bad faith.
2. Reimbursement and Quantum Meruit: While the contracts are void, the Court recognized that Macasaet may be entitled to payment for services actually rendered under the principle of quantum meruit, as established in jurisprudence involving government contracts. The determination of the reasonable value of such services is a factual matter requiring evidence.
3. Jurisdiction Over Quantum Meruit Claim: Claims for quantum meruit against the government fall under the original jurisdiction of the Commission on Audit (COA) pursuant to Commonwealth Act No. 327 , as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1445, and the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and must defer to the COA’s expertise in auditing and settling such claims.
Disposition: The Court referred Macasaet’s claim for payment based on quantum meruit to the COA for proper evaluation and determination of the reasonable value of her services. The directive for reimbursement in the July 16, 2019 Resolution is set aside pending the COA’s resolution of the quantum meruit claim.