harayo

[ G.R. NO. 157875, DECEMBER 19, 2006 ]

DR. TERESITA L. SALVA,PRESIDENT OF THE PALAWAN STATE UNIVERSITY (FORMERLY PALAWAN STATE COLLEGE), PETITIONER,

VS.

GUILLERMO N. CARAGUE, AS CHAIRMAN, COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RAUL FLORES, AS COMMISSIONER, COMMISSION ON AUDIT AND EMMANUEL M. DALMAN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER, RESPONDENTS

FACTS

Dr. Teresita L. Salva, President of the Palawan State University was held personally liable for the excess incurred amounting P274,726.38 on the construction of the Multi-Purpose Building (Phase II) due to the affirmed disallowance by the COA dated September 26, 2000. Said amount was the excess of the allocated cost for mobilization/demobilization and earth fill& compaction.

ISSUE

            Whether the position of the petitioner as the president of the PSC would automatically make her personally  liable for the excess incurred?

RULING

            The petitioner cannot be personally liable for the disallowance simply because she was the final approving authority of the transaction in question and that the officers/ employees who processed the same were directly under her supervision. Petitioner satisfactorily justified the incurrence of such additional expense. Petitioner’s explanation was acknowledged and was refused at the same by the COA, taking note of the irregularities, e.g., mobilization costs were already included and accomplished under Phase I of the project in which IDCI was also the contractor; there was no Variation Order issued to effect the change in the detailed estimate; there was no affidavit of site inspection to determine the geological conditions, etc; and the number of hours used per equipment appear to be overestimated. As explained, the term irregular, as with the terms unnecessary, excessive and extravagant when used in reference to expenditure of funds or uses of property are relative. The determination of which expenditures of funds or use of property belongs to this or that type is situational. Circumstances of time and place, behavioral and ecological factors, as well as political, social and economic conditions, would influence any such determination. Viewed from this perspective, transactions under audit are to be judged on the basis of not only the standards of legality but also those of regularity, necessity, reasonableness and moderation. It cannot be said that the additional expense incurred for the construction were irregular or excessive, unnecessary or unconscionable. It is evident that the additional expense was for the benefit of the PSU, and there is no indication that it was used for any other nefarious endeavour. The additional expense was also within the Approved agency Estimates. Further, there is no showing that petitioner was ill-motivated, or that she had personally profited or sought to profit from the transactions  or that the disbursements have been made for personal or selfish ends. Thus, petitioner should not be held personally liable for the disallowances.
            WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolution of the Commission on Audit dated March 18, 2003 issued in COA Decision No. 2003-063 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE insofar only as herein petitioner Dr. Teresita L. Salva is concerned. She is exonerated from liability.

 [ G. R. NO. 146824, NOVEMBER 21, 2007 ]

ENCARNACION E. SANTIAGO, PETITIONER,

VS.

COMMISSION ON AUDIT AND

THE DIRECTOR OF THE COMISSION ON AUDIT, REGIONAL OFFICE NO. V, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

           

Petitioner is back to her regular station and formally assumed office as the Municipal Treasurer of GOA, Camarines Sur as directed. Petitioner requested respondents and the Municipal Mayor of Goa, Camarines Sur, to pay her representation allowance, additional compensation allowance, productivity bonus, year-end bonus, clothing allowance and other benefits, excluding her salary. However, COA through the Regional Cluster Director, answered that the request cannot be paid to the petitioner because the Court already clarified the issue in the body of the decision involving emoluments.

ISSUE

Whether COA can withheld salary and other emoluments and be applied in cases of  cash shortage.

RULING

            The Court holds that COA can direct the proper officer to withhold petitioner’s salary and other emoluments under Section 21, Chapter 4, Subtitle B, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987, which is substantially the same as Section 37 of PD No. 1445, the legal basis of COA. As a result, the amount of petitioner’s salary remitted to the local government treasurer as payment of petitioner’s cash shortage should be considered merely withheld until final resolution on her indebtedness. In the event that petitioner is found not liable for the cash shortage, the withheld salary and other emoluments will be released to her; otherwise, it will be applied in payment of her indebtedness. Hence, it is clear that respondent COA can withhold the salary and other emoluments due petitioner up to the amount of her allegedshortage.

WHEREFORE, it is hereby clarified that respondent COA is authorized to withhold petitioner’s salary and other emoluments up to the amount of her alleged shortage, but not to apply the withheld amount to the alleged shortage for which her liability is still being litigated.

[ G.R. NO. 201112, JUNE 13, 2012 ]

ARCHBISHOP FERNANDO R. CAPALLA, OMAR SOLITARIO ALI AND MARY ANNE L. SUSANO, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT.

[G.R. NO. 201121]

SOLIDARITY FOR SOVEREIGNTY (S4S), REPRESENTED BY MA. LINDA OLAGUER; RAMON PEDROSA, BENJAMIN PAULINO SR., EVELYN CORONEL, MA. LINDA OLAGUER MONTAYRE, AND NELSON T. MONTAYRE, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, COMMISSIONER SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR., RESPONDENT.

[G.R. NO. 201127]

TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, BISHOP BRODERICK S. PABILLO, SOLITA COLLAS MONSOD, MARIA CORAZON MENDOZA ACOL, FR. JOSE DIZON, NELSON JAVA CELIS, PABLO R. MANALASTAS, GEORGINA R. ENCANTO AND ANNA LEAH E. COLINA, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND SMARTMATIC TIM CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

[G.R. NO. 201413]

TANGGULANG DEMOKRASYA (TAN DEM), INC., EVELYN L. KILAYKO, TERESITA D. BALTAZAR, PILAR L. CALDERON AND ELITA T. MONTILLA, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND SMARTMATIC-TIM CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Comelec entered into a contract for the Provision of an Automated Election System for the May 10, 2010 Synchronized National and Local Elections (AES Contract) with the Smartmatic-Tim.  Said contract, was one of the “lease of the AES with option to purchase (OTP) the goods listed in the contract and was given only until December 31, 2010 to exercise the option. The comelec partially exercised the option, however proposed a temporary extension of the option period, and same, did not exercise within the extended period. Several extensions were given for the Comelec to exercise the OTP until its final extension on March 31, 2012. Comelec issued a resolution, accepting the Smatmatic-Tim offer to exercise the OTP on the date specified and to authorize Chairman Brillantes to sign for and on behalf of the Comelec the Agreement on the Extension of the OTP Under the AES Contract (Extension Agreement). Comelec again issued a Resolution resolving to approve the Deed of Sale between the Comelec and Smartmatic-TIM to purchase the latter’s PCOS machines to be used in the upcoming May 2013 elections and to authorize Chairman Brillantes to sign the Deed of Sale for and on behalf of the Comelec. The Deed of Sale was forthwith executed.

That the period to exercise its OTP was already due and made extensions to exercise and the issuance of the resolution by the comelec, petitioners,then assailed its constitutionality. Respondents argue on the validity of the subject transaction based on the grounds that there is no prohibition either in the contract or provision of law for it to extend the option period; that the OTP is not an independent contract in itself, but is a provision contained in the valid and existing AES contract that had already satisfied the public bidding requirements of RA 9184; and that exercising the option was the most advantageous option of the Comelec.

ISSUE

            Whether the Comelec committed a grave abuse on the issued resolution being assailed.

HELD

As the Comelec is confronted with time and budget constraints, and in view of the  Comelec’s mandate to ensure free, honest, and credible elections, the acceptance of the extension of the option period, the exercise of the option, and the execution of the Deed of Sale, are the more prudent choices available to the Comelec for a successful 2013 automated elections. The alleged defects in the subject goods have been determined and may be corrected as in fact fixes and enhancements had been undertaken by Smartmatic-TIM. Petitioners could not even give a plausible alternative to ensure the conduct of a successful 2013 automated elections, in the event that the Court nullifies the Deed of Sale.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petitions are DISMISSED