Nelson R. Avanceña, Henry V. Palarca, Nida B. Tolentino, Teodora M. De Guzman, Jerry V. Calamba and Rodel B. Lobaton, Petitioners, vs. Commission on Audit and Ma. Corazon S. Gomez in her capacity as Regional Director of COA Regional Office No. IV-B (MIMAROPA), Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners are officials and employees of the Municipality of Dr. Jose P. Rizal, Palawan, and members/secretariat of its Bids and Awards Committee (BAC). From September to December 2014, the Municipality made several procurements from four merchants through Small Value Procurement, pursuant to four BAC Resolutions, for events such as Women’s Day, Biri-Birian Program, the 31st Founding Anniversary, and the Baragatan Festival 2014, each stating the procurement would not exceed the threshold of PHP 100,000.00. The COA Regional Office issued eight Notices of Disallowance (NDs) totaling PHP 8,191,695.83, citing violations of Republic Act No. 9184 and its 2009 Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), including: non-submission of documents; purchase requests containing brand names; splitting of contracts to circumvent public bidding; improper resort to Small Value Procurement for readily available goods; and failure to secure a certification from the DBM Procurement Service. The NDs became final and executory after petitioners failed to appeal within the reglementary period. The COA Regional Office affirmed the NDs, a decision later affirmed with modification by the COA Commission Proper. Petitioners filed this Petition for Certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the COA Commission Proper committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the disallowance of the procurement transactions.
RULING
No, the COA Commission Proper did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The petition was denied. The Court affirmed the COA’s findings that the procurements violated procurement laws. The violations included: 1) Splitting of contracts, as the BAC Resolutions collectively authorized procurements exceeding the PHP 100,000 threshold for single events, violating Section 54.1 of the 2009 IRR of RA 9184. 2) Improper use of Small Value Procurement, as the procured goods (office supplies, food, etc.) were readily available off-the-shelf items that should have been procured through Shopping, not Small Value Procurement, violating Sections 52 and 53.9 of the IRR. 3) Failure to observe the specific procedure for Small Value Procurement under Appendix 18 of the IRR, such as preparing a request for quotations from at least three suppliers. 4) Inclusion of brand names in purchase requests, violating Section 18 of RA 9184. All petitioners, as BAC members and officers who participated in the transactions by approving, certifying, or processing the disbursements, are liable under the “doctrine of collective responsibility” of the BAC. They are solidarily liable to return the disallowed amounts, except for the payee-suppliers who are liable only if they acted in bad faith or the amounts are shown to be fictitious. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion as the COA’s decisions were based on substantial evidence and correct application of procurement laws.
