This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2012-02-07 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| 1) There is no finding of fact in this Court's decision which supports the serious finding that petitioner acted in bad faith when he prevailed upon the DAP-TEC to modify the initial result of the technical evaluation of the computers by imposing an irrelevant grading system intended to favor one of the bidders; 2) Assuming without admitting there was an attempt to alter the results of the bidding, petitioner was not directly responsible for it since it was a certain Rey Evangelista whose act in itself did not constitute bad faith as to be interpreted as deliberately favoring TETRA; 3) The mere fact that petitioner was the signatory in the vouchers and other documents for the processing of the purchase after the winning bidder had been chosen does not by itself constitute bad faith, malice or negligence. His participation as final recommending/approving authority in the said purchase was merely ministerial; 4) Records of this case show that the COA decisions did not hold petitioner solely liable for the disallowed amount of P881,819.00; there were others adjudged solidarily liable with petitioner for the reimbursement of said amount; 5) The decision in Arriola v. Commission on Audit[2] should have been applied in this case. The TSO canvass coupled with confirmatory telephone canvass should be re-examined given the admission made by the COA Auditor in her 1st Indorsement dated June 6, 1994 and as held in the Dissenting Opinion of Justice Ma. Lourdes P.A. Sereno; and 6) The Court should consider the bases of comparison which is made against a clone generic brand (and its reference price values), in light of compliance with intellectual property laws on software piracy and hardware imitations.[3] | |||||
|
2012-02-07 |
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. | |||||
|
2012-02-07 |
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. | |||||
|
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] | |||||
|
2009-08-05 |
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. | |||||