A claim for supposed unpaid services worth P5,065,664.67 filed by a janitorial services firm against the Makati City government has been dismissed by the Commission on Audit (COA) for being moot.
In its en banc ruling released last week, the COA held that the petition filed by claimant Brighthouse Industries Group Inc. (BIGI) is no longer justiciable because it has been satisfied.
Based on the claim, BIGI won two contracts for janitorial services in December 2013 to the Makati City Hall compound, which includes the old and new buildings and building II and the Makati Police Station.
The contracts both had a one-year duration from January to December 2014.
Upon expiration of the contract, the city government failed to bid out a new contract. To ensure continuity of operations, BIGI was requested to continue providing the same service under the same terms every month until a new contract is awarded to a winning bidder.
This arrangement continued from January to June 2015 when BIGI submitted its billing for P5.065 million for services from April to June 2025 followed by a demand letter dated August 6, 2015.
Unable to collect, the contractor filed its petition with the COA and sought imposition of legal interest at six percent per annum, exemplary damages of P200,000 and attorney’s fees and litigation expenses of P200,000.
In its answer submitted to the COA, Makati City asked that the petition be denied on the ground that the obligation had already been extinguished due to full payment.
In a memorandum dated September 13, 2022, the supervising auditor verified that Makati City had already released payments of P4,749,060.64 net of taxes.
“By reason of payment that extinguished the obligation, there being no reason to evaluate the propriety of the claim, this money claim shall perforce be dismissed. Be that as it may, the subject transactions should still be included in the regular course of post-audit by the audit team,” the COA said.
As for the claim of legal interest, damages, and attorney’s fees, the commission said these are likewise dismissed since they are only accessories to the principal claim and are not considered liquidated claims which puts them outside of its jurisdiction.
