Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NATIONAL CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH MANAGEMENT v. COA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 180418 2013-08-28	REPUBLIC v. LUZ REYES-BAKUNAWA BERSAMIN, J.
At any rate, the Court must point out that negotiated contracts are not per se illegal. A negotiated contract is one that is awarded on the basis of a direct agreement between the Government and the contractor, without going through the normal procurement process, like obtaining the prior approval from another authority, or a competitive bidding process. It is generally resorted to for convenience, or "when time is of the essence, or where there is a lack of qualified bidders or contractors, or where there is conclusive evidence that greater economy and efficiency would be achieved."[53] The Court has upheld the validity of a negotiated contract made pursuant to law, like a negotiated contract entered into by a City Mayor pursuant to the then existing Local Government Code,[54] or a negotiated contract that eventually redounded to the benefit of the general public, even if there was no specific covering appropriation pursuant to COA rules,[55] or a negotiated contract that was made due to an emergency in the health sector,[56] or a negotiated contract for long overdue repair and renovation needed to provide better health services.[57]
	GR No. 157838 2012-02-07	CANDELARIO L. VERZOSA v. GUILLERMO N. CARAGUE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Reiterating the above declaration, National Center for Mental Health Management v. COA,[5] likewise ruled that price findings reflected in a report are not, in the absence of the actual canvass sheets and/or price quotations from identified suppliers, valid bases for outright disallowance of agency disbursements for government projects.
	GR No. 157838 2012-02-07	CANDELARIO L. VERZOSA v. GUILLERMO N. CARAGUE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
We stress anew that it is the general policy of the Court to sustain the decisions of administrative authorities, especially one which is constitutionally-created, not only on the basis of the doctrine of separation of powers but also for their presumed expertise in the laws they are entrusted to enforce. [14] Findings of quasi-judicial agencies, such as the COA, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters are generally accorded not only respect but at times even finality if such findings are supported by substantial evidence, [15] and the decision and order are not tainted with unfairness or arbitrariness that would amount to grave abuse of discretion. [16]
	GR No. 157838 2011-03-08	CANDELARIO L. VERZOSA v. GUILLERMO N. CARAGUE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Finally, petitioner contends that he should not be made personally liable for the disallowed expense. He invokes the prevailing doctrine that unless they have exceeded their authority, corporate officers, as a general rule, are not personally liable for their official acts, because a corporation, by legal fiction, has a personality separate and distinct from its officers, stockholders and members. CDA though a government corporation, there is no single allegation or imputation, much less any evidence of any act, constituting bad faith, malice or negligence on the part of petitioner during his service as Executive Director of the CDA, he being a mere signatory to the documents after the winning bidder had been chosen, and was only a recommending officer on these matters.[18]
	GR No. 168982 2009-08-05	PEOPLE v. DIR. GEN. CESAR P. NAZARENO BRION, J.
The Sandiganbayan further observed that the audit team followed a flawed procedure in reaching its overpricing conclusion. The audit team merely relied on the AFP Supply Issuance and did not conduct any actual canvass of the gun prices. Thus, to the Sandiganbayan, the comparison made between the PNP price and the AFP quoted cost was substantially deficient under the prevailing rules that indispensably required an actual canvass done on different and identified suppliers to show exactly the variances in the prices of similar articles to firm up, for evidentiary purposes and to a reliable degree of certainty, a finding of overpricing. The requirement of actual canvass, according to the Sandiganbayan, was settled law as applied by this Court in Arriola v. Commission on Audit[5] and in National Center for Mental Health Management v. COA.[6] The Sandiganbayan added that Commission on Audit Memorandum No. 97-012 dated March 31, 1997 imposed stricter requirements on the process of evidence-gathering to support any audit finding of overpricing; it now required that the initial findings be supported by canvass sheets and/or price quotations indicating: (1) the identities/names of the suppliers or sellers; (2) the availability of stock sufficient in quantity to meet the requirements of the procuring agency; (3) the specifications of the items that should match those involved in the overpricing; and (4) the purchase/contract terms and conditions that should be the same as those of the questioned transaction. The Sandiganbayan cited in this regard our ruling in Sajul v. Sandiganbayan[7] where we ruled that a basis for comparison had to be established to support a conclusion of overpricing; otherwise, the conclusion would be unfair.