NEITHER the Department of Tourism (DOT) nor the Tourism and Promotions Board (TPB) has to pay for the P4.705 million billed by a private firm for putting up the Christmas Window Display at the Philippine Consulate General four years ago.
This was the ruling issued by the Commission on Audit denying the petition filed by Asianmantra Corporation against the tourism agencies in the amount of P$90,000 or P4,704,930.
Based on the claim, Asianmantra was contracted to submit a cost estimate for the visual merchandising for the holiday window display project of the Philippine consulate for Christmas 2018. DOT tourism attaché Susan del Mundo signed the cost estimate on November 23, 2018.
While the project proposal form identified the DOT New York as the “requesting party” the TPB’s involvement was supposed to be “financial funding” with the required budget of $90,000 to be charged against the 2018 budget for “Tactical & PR & Publicity for North America.”
Asianmantra said it undertook to construct, install, and display the project at the consulate general’s NY Office until January 7, 2019 but the DOT and the TPB refused to pay when the bills were sent to them.
It was only when the demand for payment was sent that the firm was informed that the former TPB chief operating officer (COO) had reversed her initial approval of the project in view of DOT NY’s unliquidated remittances from TPB.
Asianmantra LLC also tried to secure payment from the Philippine Consulate General but was told in a letter dated October 16, 2019 that it is the DOT in the Philippines which has control and supervision over DOT New York.
The claimant said it also wrote to DOT Secretary Bernadette Romulo-Puyat as the chairperson of the Board of Directors of TPB, to follow-up the payment for its services but the DOT denied liability, stating that the TPB is a separate corporate body.
In a letter-reply dated August 3, 2020, the TPB also denied Asianmantra’s claim, citing the absence of a written contract or a binding agreement. Instead, it recommended that the firm file a money claim with the COA.
Asianmantra argued that it is entitled to be paid in full, otherwise this is tantamount to unjust enrichment on the part of the government.
It asserted that the document signed by Del Mundo is binding upon the DOT and the TPB.
The COA Commission Proper, however, said the petition for money claim is unmeritorious.
“This Commission rules that there was no contract validly established. In this case, the sole basis of Asianmantra LLC’s claim is the signature of Ms. Del Mundo in the Cost Estimate Agreement. In fact, Ms. Del Mundo has no valid legal representation to sign on behalf of the TPB,” the commission pointed out.
At the same time, it held that the Cost Estimate Agreement is not a valid contract under Article 1305 of the Civil Code.
“There is no documentation to show that a contract was validly awarded to Asianmantra. Basically, the claim should be supported with: (1) contract, (2) covering appropriation, and (3) proof of actual services rendered/deliveries made. In this case, Asianmantra LLC was not able to substantiate its claim and failed to submit all the pertinent documents,” the COA added.
Even under the measure of recovery under the principle of quantum meruit or reasonable compensation based on services rendered, the commission noted that Asianmantra failed to substantiate the reasonable value of services performed.
It noted the lack of cost breakdown as to materials, labor, and overhead expenses.
However, the COA said the ruling is without prejudice to the refiling of the claim once sufficient proof and documentary requirements are obtained to support reasonableness of the amount being claimed.
