THE Commission on Audit has “affirmed with finality” its January 31, 2020 decision that denied a P92.8 million claim filed by the National Food Authority (NFA) against the Department of Education (DepEd).
In its en banc ruling, the COA held that the NFA’s motion for reconsideration must be denied because it failed to submit proof that there was actual delivery of rice under the DepEd’s Food for School Program (FSP) from 2006 to 2010 despite being accorded ample time to do so.
In its petition, the NFA claimed that it made excess deliveries of rice to the DepEd that were not paid by the latter.
Among the documents it submitted in support of the claim were a certification from DepEd Undersecretary Francisco Varela that the agency received rice deliveries amounting to P92,797,212.50 and an answer from former Education Secretary Armin Luistro admitting the certification from Varela as well as its contents.
The COA, however, said the admissions by DepEd officials did not amount to sufficient proof of the validity of an enforceable obligation against the Education department.
“At the outset, the NFA still failed to submit all the necessary documents to support the claim … which included various MOAs (memoranda or agreement), WSIs (warehouse stock issues), the request of DepEd for the excess rice deliveries, and the Inspection and Acceptance Report,” the commission said.
It declared that the WSI’s were “indispensable to substantiate the claim of the NFA that there were deliveries” as they were the accepted basis for billing, reconciliation of records, and release of payment.
It pointed out that while copies of the duplicates of WSIs were submitted to the audit team and the Schools Division Offices, the original copies were retained by the NFA.
“Mere reliance on the certification by the Heads of Offices and other documents mentioned by NFA in its MR without proper validation from the CO A auditor are not considered substantial to establish its claim against the DepEd,” the commission said.
It pointed out that if it were to allow claims based on mere admission from parties, it might “open a floodgate of problems” where claims against government funds would be supported by mere agreement between transacting parties when they are unable to produce the necessary documents.
