This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2012-02-07 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| The majority, however, is bent on disregarding the foregoing Arriola holding on the basis of the pronouncement in Nava that it cannot be applied retroactively. It is worth noting, however, that in Buscaino v. COA,[17] a case involving an audit disallowance made in 1986, as in Arriola, the Court's ruling in Arriola was nonetheless applied retroactively therein. Specifically: Going into the merits of the case, the Court finds that the [COA] acted with grave abuse of discretion in handing down its assailed decision. The various disbursements upon which petitioner's liability is based have not been indubitably established as patently invalid or irregular and the disallowances ordered by COA were not substantiated by sufficient evidence on record. | |||||
|
2011-03-08 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Petitioner cites the dissenting opinion[15] of COA Commissioner Emmanuel M. Dalman who found no overpricing in this case and the CDA decision as one done in good faith and with the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions. Indeed, it behooved on COA to prove that the standards set by the COA circular were met in audit disallowance; it even failed to produce actual canvass sheets and/or price quotations from identified suppliers. The Summary of Price Data and comparison sheets attached to the Notice of Disallowance by themselves are not sufficient basis for the disallowance herein since they do not satisfy the requirement highlighted in the case of Arriola v. Commission on Audit.[16] The COA auditor herself (author of the Notice of Disallowance) admitted that she did not personally prepare actual canvass sheets and only a telephone canvass was conducted. As to the volume discount, again no evidence was adduced to show that the other bidders would have given the same if the contract was awarded to them. What is certain is that, owing to the consideration of the two major criteria of "technical evaluation" and "after-sales support", most of the computer equipments provided by Tetra pursuant to the disallowed transaction are still functioning to date, even after twelve (12) years of continued use.[17] | |||||
|
2009-01-30 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, there is obviously a denial of due process in this case. The due process requirement mandates that every accused or respondent be apprised of the nature and cause of the charge against him, and the evidence in support thereof be shown or made available to him so that he can meet the charge with traversing or exculpatory evidence.[28] A cursory reading of the complaint-affidavit does not reveal that petitioner was charged with violation of Section 4(b) of R.A. No. 6713. Likewise, in the OMB's Evaluation Report, the charges indicated were for malversation, falsification, dishonesty and grave misconduct. | |||||
|
2000-07-18 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| "Dismissal of appeals purely on technical grounds is frowned upon and the rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid, technical sense, for they are adopted to help secure, not override, substantial justice, and thereby defeat their very aims."[17] Rules of procedure are mere tools designed to expedite the decision or resolution of cases and other matters pending in court. A strict and rigid application of rules that would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice must be avoided.[18] | |||||