Scribd
Upload
45 views6 pages

DECISION Bernardo Final

COA Decisions on appeals

Uploaded by

clemencioreuville9
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
45 views6 pages

DECISION Bernardo Final

COA Decisions on appeals

Uploaded by

clemencioreuville9
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 6

REGIONAL OFFICE NO.

VIII
Leyte Government Center, Candahug, Palo, Leyte

RO VIII Decision
No.___________
Date _______________________
RE: Appeal of Felicisima A. Bernardo,
Municipal Treasurer, Guiuan,
Eastern Samar, from Notice of
Disallowance (ND) No. 2019-001-
401 dated August 15, 2019 in the
amount of P2,154,195.23
representing payment for the repair
of Guiuan Municipal Building

DECISION

PREFATORY STATEMENT

Before this Office is an Appeal filed, pursuant to Rule V of the 2009 Revised
Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Audit (RRPC), by Felicisima A. Bernardo,
Municipal Treasurer, Guiuan, Eastern Samar, from Notice of Disallowance (ND) No.
2019-001-401 dated August 15, 2019, in the total amount of P2,154,195.23.

FACTS OF THE CASE

On August 15, 2019, the Audit Team Leader (ATL) and the Supervising
Auditor (SA) issued Notice of Disallowance No. 2019-001-401 in the amount of
P2,154,195.23 due to overpricing as per COA Technical Evaluation Report (TER)
dated February 19, 2019 which states that:

“The Approved Budget for the Contract (ABC) in the amount of


P43,000,000.00, and the Contract Cost in the amount of P42,976,859.84
were both found to be 15.87% and 15.80%, respectively, higher than the
COA Cost Estimate of P37,111,513.28, hence, both were considered not
reasonable per COA Resolution No. 91-52 dated September 17, 1991.
The cost difference between the Contract Cost and the COA Allowable
Cost amounted to P2,154,195.23.”

Page 1|6
The following persons were determined to be liable for the disallowed
transaction:

Name Position/Designation Nature of participation


Christopher Sheen P. Municipal Mayor Approved the contract and
Gonzales payment of the transaction
Adrian E. Bernardo Municipal Certified that the transaction
Accountant was proper and supporting
documents were complete
Engr. Arsenio V. Salamida Municipal As Municipal Engineer he
Engineer/BAC prepared the design and the
Chairman cost estimate of the project.
As BAC Chairman, he
approved BAC Resolution No.
N(EC)-001-2014
recommending Negotiated
Procurement
Esperanza G. Cotin BAC Vice Chairman
Gilberto N. Labicane BAC Members
Engr. Joselito G. Baes
Ma. Nenita S. Ecleo Certified/approved BAC
Danilo G. Colandog Resolution No. N(EC)-001-
Felipe Padual 2014 recommending
Engr. Zosimo D. BAC/TWG Member Negotiated Procurement
Macabasag
Eraño Macapagao BAC Secretary
Felicisima A. Bernardo Municipal Treasurer Payment of the transaction
Pablo S. Labasbas Contractor/Payee Approved the contract and
received payment

The following is a summary of jurisdictional facts to determine the timeliness


of the appeal:

Date of receipt of the ND September 17, 2019


Date of filing the appeal May 19, 2020
Days elapsed 245
Mode of filing Personal
Amount of filing fee P2,175.74

Page 2|6
Date of payment of filing fee May 19, 2020

Under Section 481 of PD No. 1445 and Section 4 2, Rule V of the RRPC,
Appellant has six (6) months within which to file an appeal from receipt of the ND.
Considering that Appellant received the ND on September 17, 2019, the last day of
filing the appeal is March 15, 2020.

However, in COA Resolution No. 2020-022 dated April 16, 2020, this
Commission resolved to allow an extension of sixty (60) days to file all appeals from
Notices of Disallowance/Charge or Auditor’s decision, among others, with deadlines
falling on or after March 13, 2020. With the 60-day extension, the last day of filing
was extended to May 14, 2020. Appellant filed her appeal on May 19, 2020, hence,
five (5) days delayed.

In her Appeal Memorandum, Ms. Bernardo prayed for her exclusion from
liability in the ND on the following grounds:

1. The disallowance was attributed to the excessive unit price


derivation of Item 1 – Removal of existing Structures and
Obstruction, Item V – Structural Concrete, and Item VI –
Reinforcing Steel Bars, resulting in overpricing of the project
undertaken by the procuring agency which is beyond her function.

2. It was not shown in the COA Findings that she committed a mistake,
whether intentional or not, in relation to her function as Municipal
Treasurer which was limited to scrutinize the supporting documents
and pay for the transaction.

3. Her function as Municipal Treasurer is ministerial in nature, carried


out without exercising personal judgment or discretion. Thus, after
ensuring the completeness of the documents in relation to the
project, she pays the cost thereof without any discretion or power to
determine the propriety or irregularity of the project.

The ATL and the SA, in their Answer, aver that:

1. Appellant was included as one of the persons liable because as


provided in Section 16.1.1 of COA Circular No. 2009-006, being the
custodian of government funds, she shall be liable for failure to
1
Section 48. Appeal from decision of auditors. Any person aggrieved by the decision of an auditor of any
government agency in the settlement of an account or claim may within six months from receipt of a copy of the
decision appeal in writing to the Commission.
2
Section 4. When Appeal Taken - An Appeal must be filed within six (6) months after receipt of the decision
appealed from.
Page 3|6
ensure that such funds are safely guarded against loss or damage;
that they are expended, utilized, disposed of or transferred in
accordance with law and regulations, and on the basis of prescribed
documents and necessary records.

2. They agree that if indeed there was overpricing in the (ABC),


Appellant should not be held liable for the reason that her function is
separate and distinct from that of the Office of the Municipal
Engineer. The Individual Program of Work, which was also the
basis for the Approved Budget for the Contract (ABC), was prepared
by the Office of the Municipal Engineer.

3. They believe that Appellant had no technical knowledge in


engineering especially in the preparation of program of works or
detailed engineering, and much more in the preparation of the ABC.

4. They believe that Appellant had no participation from inception of


the project, procurement process and implementation of the project.
Appellant’s only participation was on the payment process; she had
no knowledge of overpricing as she relied on the completeness of the
supporting documents duly certified by the Municipal Accountant.

ISSUE

Whether or not the appeal may be given due course.

DISCUSSION

At the outset, this Office finds the instant Appeal untimely, noting that
Appellant filed her appeal on May 19, 2020, five days beyond the extended period to
file the appeal.

However, settled is the principle that procedural rules of the most mandatory
character may be suspended where "matters of life, liberty, honor or property" warrant
its liberal application especially so when attended by the following: (1) special or
compelling circumstances, (2) the merits of the case, (3) a cause not entirely
attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the
rules, (4) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and
dilatory, and (5) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby."3

Here, this Office recognizes that the merits of the case warrants the liberal
application of COA Rules.

3
Reyes vs. Manalo, et al., G.R. No. 237201, September 22, 2020
Page 4|6
While the COA-RTS found both the ABC and Contract Cost unreasonable
compared to the COA Allowable Cost, it is worth to note that the discrepancies were
attributed to the excessive unit price derivation in two (2) Items of the project,
namely: a) Item I – Removal of Existing Structures and Obstruction, and b) Item V –
Reinforcing Steel Bars. Hence, the disallowance of P2,154,195.23 was based on
“overpricing” or excessiveness in the Contract Cost.

However, we are convinced with Appellant’s argument that the preparation of


the ABC with the Items of Work is done by the Municipal Engineer (ME), and if
indeed, there was overpricing in the ABC and Contract Cost, Appellant should not be
held liable since her function is separate and distinct from that of the ME. As noted
by Appellees, the Individual Program of Work was prepared by the Office of the
Municipal Engineer which was the basis of the ABC, likewise prepared by the same
Office. In fact, herein Appellees agreed that Appellant, being the Municipal
Treasurer, had no knowledge in detailed engineering especially in the preparation of
the Program of Works, and much more, in the preparation of the ABC. Appellant had
no participation from the inception of the project, the procurement process, up to the
implementation of the project. Her only participation was on the disbursement
process when she certified “Funds Available” in box B of the disbursement voucher
and paid the transaction. As further noted by Appellees, the disbursement vouchers
for the payments of the project were supported by the necessary documents.

Thus, in view of the foregoing, this Office gives due course to the appeal.

RULING

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby


GRANTED. Accordingly, Notice of Disallowance No. 2019-001-401 dated August
15, 2019 in the amount of P2,154,195.23 is AFFIRMED with modification in that,
Felicisima A. Bernardo is excluded from the persons liable under the ND. This
Decision, however, is not yet FINAL and is subject to automatic review by the
Commission Proper pursuant to Section 7, Rule V of the RRPC and COA Resolution
No. 2021 – 037 dated December 20, 2021.

ATTY. FELIX M. BASALLAJE,


JR.
Director IV
Regional Director

Page 5|6
COA RO VIII/LAD
FMB/ATJ/AMF/Ruc

Copy Furnished:

Felicisima A. Bernardo
Office of the Municipal Treasurer
Guiuan, Eastern Samar

Jayson G. Azura
OIC/Audit Team Leader R8-03

Mylene C. Delantar
OIC/Supervising Auditor
LGAS-A Province of Eastern Samar

Both of this Commission


This Region

Page 6|6

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy