AN appeal filed by former officials of the Department of Agriculture (DA) – Bureau of Agricultural Research (BAR) failed to convince the Commission on Audit to lift the notice of disallowance on their P4.52 million payment for the acquisition of motor vehicles and health benefits in 2010.
The COA Commission Proper denied the motion for reconsideration filed by BAR director Nicomedes Eleazar, assistant director Teodoro Solsoloy, accountant Roberto Quing Jr., and budget officer Judith Maghanoy.
In a previous decision dated March 27, 2015, the COA had already dismissed the petition for review of the BAR executives for being filed beyond the six-month reglementary period.
The group, however, insisted that their arguments be considered, invoking the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Metro Rail Transit Corp vs. Court of Appeals and Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue that it is preferable to decide a case on merits based on substance rather than on pure technicalities.
However, the COA held that the dismissal of the petition was proper since the appellants did not offer any valid justification for the late filing.
It noted that the BAR officials violated the deadlines twice — first when they filed their appeal on the notice of disallowance 70 days after the limit, and second, when they filed the petition for review 92 days after receiving the COA resolution.
“Dir. Eleazar et al. violated the procedural rules, not only once, but twice. (The) late filing of the appeal for the second time is a clear disregard of this Commission’s procedural rules,” the Commission said.
But even if the case is decided on its merits, the COA said its ruling will not vary.
It noted that BAR had no budget for capital outlay specifically for the procurement of motor vehicles and its use of the Central Luzon State University Foundation Inc. as conduit was an indirect contravention of laws.
Republic Act No. 9524 or the General Appropriations Act for 2009 provides that purchase of motor vehicles was not allowed unless these were medical ambulances, military and police vehicles, motorcycles for utility, and road construction equipment.
“In the procurement of the subject motor vehicles, the BAR used the CLSUFI as a conduit which, in effect, violated Section 15(b) of the GP of RA No. 9524, especially that said motor vehicles were purchased without the authority of the department or agency head and the Secretary of Budget and Management,” the COA said.
It added that the records of the transaction would be turned over to the Office of the Ombudsman for the conduct of an investigation and filing of criminal charges if necessary.
