GR 157838; (February, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 157838 ; February 7, 2012
CANDELARIO L. VERZOSA, JR. (in his former capacity as Executive Director of the Cooperative Development Authority), Petitioner, vs. GUILLERMO N. CARAGUE (in his official capacity as Chairman of the COMMISSION ON AUDIT), RAUL C. FLORES, CELSO D. GANGAN, SOFRONIO B. URSAL and COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Respondents.
FACTS
The Commission on Audit (COA) disallowed the amount of ₱881,819.00 for the purchase of computer equipment by the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA), finding the transaction to be overpriced. COA held petitioner Candelario L. Verzosa, Jr., then CDA Executive Director, personally and solidarily liable. The Supreme Court, in a Decision dated March 8, 2011, affirmed the COA rulings. Verzosa filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing the Court’s finding of his bad faith was unsupported, his participation was merely ministerial, and the COA’s price comparison was flawed for using generic clones instead of identical branded items.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the Supreme Court correctly affirmed the COA’s disallowance and the finding of petitioner’s personal solidary liability for the overpriced purchase.
RULING
The Court denied the motion for reconsideration. It clarified that the COA did not violate its own rules in determining overpricing. The legal logic is that COA Circular No. 85-55-A allows price comparison based on “identical or similar specifications,” not strictly identical brands. The COA-Technical Services Office canvass, which allowed a 15% mark-up on reference prices, validly established that the purchased computers were overpriced even compared to generic units with similar or better specifications.
On liability, the Court reiterated that petitioner’s actions transcended ministerial functions. As the head of agency who reconstituted the Pre-Qualification, Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC) and certified the expenses as “necessary, lawful and incurred under my direct supervision,” he exercised discretion and oversight. His act of prevailing upon the Development Academy of the Philippines-Technical Evaluation Committee to modify the initial bid evaluation results demonstrated a degree of participation sufficient to establish liability. The ruling affirms that public officers who approve irregular expenditures can be held solidarily liable for the disallowed amount, as the certification on a disbursement voucher is a discretionary act attesting to the transaction’s validity. The Court found no reason to deviate from its original decision.