THE Commission on Audit has reinstated the notice of disallowance (ND) issued against Puerto Princesa City officials over irregularities found by auditors in the bidding for the procurement of P79.85 million worth of heavy equipment in 2010.
In a 14-page decision, the COA en banc reversed the 2016 ruling of the COA Region 4B that lifted the disallowance on the grounds that there was actual delivery of the machinery, that they complied with the specifications, and that the city benefited from them.
COA Chairperson Gamaliel Cordoba and Commissioners Roland Café Pondoc and Mario Lipana sustained the ND, noting that city officials failed to offer controverting evidence to disprove the finding of violations of the Government Procurement Reform Act (RA 9184) and its Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations (RIRR).
However, they held that the city officials are no longer required to refund the value of the transaction since the supplier, Gold Wing Trading Inc., is entitled to retain the payments for fulfilling its end of the transaction.
Held liable were the late city mayor Edward Hagedorn, assistant city accountant Aida Dusong, Bids and Awards Committee chair Agustin Rocamora, BAC members Armando Abrea, Vicente Licerio Jr., Ruben Francisco, and Gregorio Austria, BAC Technical Working Group head Josefino Vicente, BAC Secretariat head Florencio Fernandez Jr., and the supplier.
“The appellants failed to offer evidence to controvert the findings of the auditor on the violations of RA No. 9184 and its 2009 RIRR, which attended the procurement of various heavy equipment. Thus, the ND is sustained,” the Commission said.
However, since the audit team verified the delivery of the five 10-wheeler dump trucks, four six-wheeler dump trucks and four six-wheeler garbage compactors by Gold Wing Trading, there is no longer any basis to require a refund since the supplier deserves to be paid.
“Despite the irregularity of the procurement, it is not disputed that the various heavy equipment was delivered. The SC, in a line of cases, has allowed payment on the basis of merit in the interest of equity and substantial justice,” the COA pointed out.
Because the disallowance was sustained and the violations of the procurement law were not set aside, the COA ordered its Prosecution and Litigation Office to refer the audit records to the Office of the Ombudsman for further investigation if there are grounds for administrative and criminal cases.
