ZALAMEDA, J.:
- Delivery receipt/Sales Invoice;
- Acknowledgement Receipt for Equipment (ARE);
- Acceptance and Inspection Report;
- Deed of Sale duly notarized;
- Notice of Direct Contracting in the Agency Website;
- Notice of Direct Contracting in the Phil GEPS;
- Request for Price Quotation to selected suppliers/Canvass;
- BAC Resolution which shall state that a survey of the industry/market has been conducted to justify the exclusivity of the distributorship/dealership of the goods;
- BAC Resolution adopting Direct Contracting was not approved by the Governor;
- BAC Recommendation and Approval of the Governor in the contract;
- DTI business name registration or SEC registration certificate;
- Valid and current Mayors Permit; &
- Tax Clearance Certificate.[7]
Name | Position/Designation | Nature of Participation in the Transaction |
Luis Raymund F. Villafuerte, Jr. | Provincial Governor | For approving the transaction |
Leticia L. Aliorde | Provincial Accountant | Certified that the [disbursement voucher] was supported with complete documents |
Mario T. Alicaway | Provincial Treasurer | For being then the Provincial Treasurer |
Bernadette G. Carlos, M.D. | Former BAC Chairman | For being the BAC Chairman and certifying that the conditions and requirements resulting to direct contracting were present |
Jaime M. Letada, Jr. | BAC Member | For being the BAC Member and certifying that the conditions and requirements resulting to direct contracting were present. |
Santiago V. Pan | BAC Member | Same as above |
Fortunato C. Pena | BAC Member | Same as above |
Bernardo A. Prila | BAC Member/OIC PGSO | For being [a] BAC Member and certifying on the Obligation Request that the transaction was charge to appropriation/allotment necessary (sic), lawful and under his direct supervision and that supporting documents valid, proper and legal.[10] |
Date of receipt of ND No. 2010-100-007 (2008) | September 27, 2010 |
Date the appeal was filed before the Regional Director, COA RO No. V | March 25, 2011 |
Number of days elapsed | 178 days |
Date of receipt of COA RO No. V Decision No. 2012-L-033 | November 13, 2012 |
Date of original deadline to file a Petition for Review | November 15, 2012 |
Date of filing of Motion for a 60 days (sic) Extension | November 14, 2012 |
Date of new deadline for filing a Petition for Review | January 14, 2013[31] |
ARTICLE XVI
Alternative Methods of Procurement
SECTION 48. Alternative Methods. — Subject to the prior approval of the Head of the Procuring Entity or his duly authorized representative, and whenever justified by the conditions provided in this Act, the Procuring Entity may, in order to promote economy and efficiency, resort to any of the following alternative methods of Procurement:(a) Limited Source Bidding, otherwise known as Selective Bidding — a method of Procurement that involves direct invitation to bid by the Procuring Entity from a set of pre-selected suppliers or consultants with known experience and proven capability relative to the requirements of a particular contract;
(b) Direct Contracting, otherwise known as Single Source Procurement — a method of Procurement that does not require elaborate Bidding Documents because the supplier is simply asked to submit a price quotation or a pro-forma invoice together with the conditions of sale, which offer may be accepted immediately or after some negotiations;
(c) Repeat Order — a method of Procurement that involves a direct Procurement of Goods from the previous winning bidder, whenever there is a need to replenish Goods procured under a contract previously awarded through Competitive Bidding;
(d) Shopping — a method of Procurement whereby the Procuring Entity simply requests for the submission of price quotations for readily available off-the-shelf Goods or ordinary/regular equipment to be procured directly from suppliers of known qualification; or
(e) Negotiated Procurement — a method of Procurement that may be resorted under the extraordinary circumstances provided for in Section 53 of this Act and other instances that shall be specified in the IRR, whereby the Procuring Entity directly negotiates a contract with a technically, legally and financially capable supplier, contractor or consultant.
In all instances, the Procuring Entity shall ensure that the most advantageous price for the government is obtained.[38]
(a) Procurement of Goods of proprietary nature, which can be obtained only from the proprietary source, i.e. when patents, trade secrets and copyrights prohibit others from manufacturing the same item;
(b) When the Procurement of critical components from a specific manufacturer, supplier or distributor is a condition precedent to hold a contractor to guarantee its project performance, in accordance with the provisions of his contract; or,
(c) Those sold by an exclusive dealer or manufacturer, which does not have sub-dealers selling at lower prices and for which no suitable substitute can be obtained at more advantageous terms to the government.
- If a Notice of Disallowance is set aside by the Court, no return shall be required from any of the persons held liable therein.
- If a Notice of Disallowance is upheld, the rules on return are as follows:
- Approving and certifying officers who acted in good faith, in the regular performance of official functions, and with the diligence of a good father of the family are not civilly liable to return consistent with Section 38 of the Administrative Code of 1987.
- Pursuant to Section 43 of the Administrative Code of 1987, approving and certifying officers who are clearly shown to have acted with bad faith, malice, or gross negligence, are solidarity liable together with the recipients for the return of the disallowed amount.
- The civil liability for the disallowed amount may be reduced by the amounts due to the recipient based on the application of the principle of quantum meruit on a case-to-case basis.
- These rules are without prejudice to the application of the more specific provisions of law, COA rules and regulations, and accounting principles depending on the nature of the government contract involved.[44]
Section 305. Fundamental Principles. — The financial affairs, transactions, and operations of local government units shall be governed by the following fundamental principles:
x x x x
(1) Fiscal responsibility shall be shared by all those exercising authority over the financial affairs, transactions, and operations of the local government units. x x x[50]
However, as correctly pointed out by the appellees, the projects involved in Vigilar and in the related cases cited therein were tangible infrastructure projects, wherein the contractors' accomplishments, as well as the benefits derived by the public, were verified and proven, and which served as basis for allowing payment by quantum meruit. On the contrary, no convincing proof was adduced by the herein appellants that PG-CamSur and the general public actually benefited from the purchase of the shipping vessel. As previously discussed, the certifications submitted by the appellants as proof of the actual physical possession and use of the shipping vessel were tainted with ambiguity and irrelevance, failing to provide even an iota of proof that the shipping vessel was actually used by the provincial government and/or the French Survivor Team. Defeating all the more the appellants' contention that non-payment to [Regina Shipping] would amount to unjust enrichment on the part of the government was the appellees categorical statement in their Answer to the Supplemental Appeal Memorandum that on September 27, 2010, on a visit to Sangay, Camarines Sur where the shipping vessel was docked, it was discovered that the shipping vessel was already out of order.[51]