DESPITE late compliance with submission of required documents, officials of the Pangasinan State University (PSU) were still cleared of any liability as the Commission on Audit granted their petition for the lifting of a notice of disallowance (ND) against a P2.03-million project undertaken in 2012.
COA chairperson Gamaliel Cordoba and Commissioners Roland Café Pondoc and Mario Lipana held that procedural rules on meeting deadlines can be relaxed where the cause of the delay is justifiable.
In its 14-page decision, the COA en banc said that while filed beyond the 180-day allowable period for appeals, the petition for review filed by the PSU officials was meritorious.
Petitioners PDSU-Sta. Maria Campus director Simeon Cabansag, Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) chairperson Josephine Cabading, BAC vice chair Dionisio Cruz, accountant Antonio Abello, and cashier Lerma Ulpindo were previously held liable in the ND issued against the P2,034,734 “building, fabrication, installation of various equipment for the one-level Clonal Nursery Building constructed in 2012.”
While the structure was completed, the audit team issued a notice of suspension due to deficient documentation as the state university officials failed to submit the Project Procurement Management Plan, Annual Procurement Plan, Approved Budget for the Contract, and original copies of bidding documents.
The PSU officials submitted the required documents on Jan. 23, 2014 after being given 90 days and a two-week extension. However, the audit team declined to lift the suspension after noting that the documents were unsigned and improperly transmitted.
They were finally able to submit formally on March 3, 2014 only to be informed that auditors have already issued the notice of disallowance on Feb. 28, 2014.
“Although strict compliance with the rules of procedure is desired, liberal interpretation is warranted in cases where a strict enforcement of the rules will not serve the ends of justice; and that it is a better rule that courts, under the principle of equity, will not be guided or bound strictly by the statute of limitations or the doctrine of laches when to do so, manifest wrong or injustice would result,” the COA said.
And since there was a substantial compliance with the submission of support documents and no allegations of either irregularity, failure of public bidding, or overpricing, the commission held that implementing the disallowance would be inequitable.
“Considering that no pecuniary loss was suffered by the government, this Commission considers the lifting of the disallowance being warranted under the circumstances,” the COA added.
