GR 223762; (November, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 223762 . November 7, 2017.
TOMAS N. JOSON III, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Respondent.
FACTS
A COA Special Audit Team disallowed payments totaling Php155,036,681.77 made by the Provincial Government of Nueva Ecija to A.V.T. Construction for the Nueva Ecija Friendship Hotel project. The disallowance was based on findings that the contractor was ineligible, the award violated procurement rules under R.A. No. 9184 , and the project remained unoperational. The Notice of Disallowance held petitioner, then Provincial Governor and head of the procuring entity, solidarily liable for approving the contracts and payment vouchers.
Petitioner sought exclusion from liability, arguing that determining bidder eligibility was the exclusive responsibility of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC). He contended he had the right to rely on the BAC’s faithful performance of its duties under the Arias doctrine, which presumes regularity in the conduct of subordinates. The COA denied his petition, ruling he failed to exercise due diligence as a signatory to the contracts and could not invoke the Arias doctrine, prompting this certiorari petition.
ISSUE
Whether the Commission on Audit gravely abused its discretion in holding petitioner solidarily liable for the disallowed amount.
RULING
No, the COA did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court upheld the COA’s decision, emphasizing that the Arias doctrine is not an absolute shield. The doctrine, which allows officials to rely on subordinates’ recommendations, applies only when the official signs documents in good faith and based on the presumption of regularity. Here, the irregularities were glaring and should have prompted petitioner to exercise a higher degree of diligence.
As the head of the procuring entity and local chief executive, petitioner had the ultimate responsibility to ensure compliance with procurement laws. His signature on the contracts and approval of payments constituted a direct act of participation. The Court found that the supporting documents for the contract award were patently insufficient on their face, indicating the contractor’s ineligibility. Petitioner’s failure to scrutinize these documents, given his position and the substantial amount involved, constituted gross negligence. Therefore, he was correctly held solidarily liable for the disallowed amount, as his actions exceeded mere reliance on subordinates and demonstrated a lack of due diligence in the performance of his official duties.