G.R. No. 254337 , June 18, 2024
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 due to petitioners’ failure 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 subject procurements.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition and AFFIRMED the assailed Decision of the COA Commission Proper. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion. The procurements violated procurement laws, specifically the improper use of Small Value Procurement. The BAC Resolutions recommended Small Value Procurement as an “alternative mode,” but under the law, it is not an alternative mode to competitive bidding but a method of procurement under the alternative mode of Shopping. The procurements were for readily available goods for specific events, which did not qualify as “unforeseen contingency” necessary for Shopping. The transactions also constituted splitting of contracts, as multiple purchase orders were issued to the same supplier on the same day for similar items, each kept below the PHP 100,000 threshold, to evade competitive bidding. Petitioners, as BAC members, failed in their duty to ensure compliance with procurement laws. All persons named in the NDs are liable to return the disallowed amounts solidarily, except for the suppliers/payees who can be held liable only if they acted in bad faith or the disbursement was patently illegal. The case was remanded to the COA to determine the good faith of the suppliers.