EN BANC
G.R. No. 201042, June 16, 2015
DARAGA PRESS, INC., Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT AND DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION-AUTONOMOUS REGION IN MUSLIM MINDANAO, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
1. There were three (3) copies of [Purchase Orders] PO No. 075-PTB issued, which were all dated June 15, 1998 addressed to [petitioner] DPI. The first one with the amount of P63,638,750.00 was received undated by White Orchids Printing and Publishing with an unidentified signature, while the other two (2) POs, which bear the amount of P63,63 8,975.00 and P63,638,032.00, were received undated by [petitioner] DPI. The POs did not indicate the mode of procurement and the place and date of delivery;These discrepancies, inconsistencies and inaccuracies, as well as the lack of appropriation for the purchase of the subject textbooks considering that the Special Allotment Release Order (SARO)25 for the amount of P63,638,750.00,26 upon which petitioner DPI anchored its claim, pertained to the payment of personal services (payment of salaries of teachers), not for the purchase of textbooks,27 led the respondent COA to conclude that there was no substantial evidence to grant the money claim.28 And since the actual delivery of the subject textbooks was not established, the respondent COA likewise ruled that the equitable principle of quantum meruit could not be applied.29
2. There were two (2) sets of [Sales Invoice] SI Nos. 5806 and 5808 and two (2) sets of Pelivery Receipt] (DR) Nos. 5206 and 5207, all dated July 3, 1998, bearing similar serial numbers but with different signatories on the received portion thereof, which indicates possible falsification of public documents;
3. Two (2) Certifications, which were purportedly issued by Sulpicio Lines, differed as to the date of delivery and receipt, casting doubt on the authenticity of the delivery of textbooks;
4. Five (5) contradicting reports on receipt and acceptance of deliveries and three (3) sets of Inspection Reports by the Regional Secretary of ARMM, indicate doubtful invoices and [DRs]; and
5. The figures in the PO, DR, Memorandum Receipts, and Certification and Affidavit of Supply Officer differ.24cralawlawlibrary
2) Various inconsistencies/inaccuracies were noted in the verification of documents submitted/attached to the claim showing different dates, amounts, and signatories, casting doubt on the authenticity of the documents and the transaction.We believe that these inconsistencies, discrepancies, and inaccuracies are enough reasons for the respondent COA to deny the money claim.
a) Three (3) copies of POs were issued with the same number but with three different amounts, received undated by [petitioner] DPI and White Orchids Printing, indicating the absence of safeguards against irregularities in the handling or substitution of vital documents like PO.
There were three copies of PO No. 075-PTB issued, all dated June 15, 1998 addressed to [petitioner DPI], one with a total amount of P63,638,750 x x x was received undated by White Orchids Printing and Publishing with an unidentified signature while the other two copies with two different amounts of P63,638,975 x x x and P63,638,032 x x x were received also undated by the [petitioner DPI]. The PO did not indicate the mode of procurement and the place and date of delivery;
b) There were two sets of [SI] Nos. 5806 and 5808 and two (2) sets of [DRs] Nos. 5206 and 5207, all dated July 3, 1998, bearing similar serial numbers but with different signatories on the received portion thereof, indicating possible falsification of public documents.
x x x The first set of Sis x x x and DRs x x x was signed on the received portion by DECS-ARMM [Regional] Secretary x x x while the second set of Sis and DRs x x x was signed by x x x, Supply Officer I.
The owner of [petitioner] DPI, x x x sought to explain the two sets of Sis and DRs in his letter dated November 26, 2009 x x x in response to our letter dated November 9, 2009 x x x; that this came about when the then DECS-ARMM informed his Office that the Sis and DRs signed by DECS-ARMM [Regional] Secretary x x x [were] not in accordance with their practice that it is the Supply Officer who is supposed to sign these documents; that to rectify this, another set was signed by x x x, Supply Officer I, thus resulting in two different signatories in the same set of Sis and DRs.
The said explanation is untenable. To give due course to the explanation is tantamount to allowing the substitution of facts that did not actually happen and can be considered falsification of public documents.
c) Two Certifications purportedly issued by Sulpicio Lines differed in dates of delivery and receipt, casting doubt on the authenticity of the delivery of textbooks.
There were two Certifications with no official logo on the [letterhead] purportedly issued by Sulpicio Lines, Inc., Cotabato City Branch upon the request of [petitioner] DPI both dated 8th day of September 1999 but bearing different delivery and receipt dates as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryMoreover, the dates of delivery and receipt in the said Certifications do not agree with the dates of the two copies of Bill of Lading (BOL) of June 25, 1998 and June 29, 1998 x x x. The BOL states that the books are supplementary books and reference materials and not textbooks as alleged;
Date of Certification Date delivered by Sulpicio Lines and received by
[the Regional Secretary of ARMM] Annex September 8, 1999 June 23, 1998 24 September 8, 1999 July 2, 1998 25
d) Five contradicting reports on receipt and acceptance of deliveries and three sets of Inspection Reports by the Regional Secretary of ARMM, indicate doubtful invoices and [DRs].
Four (4) sets of Reports on Receipt and Acceptance of the books by Regional Secretary x x x, DECS-ARMM, dated July 5, 1998 and July 7, 1998, contained contradictory/conflicting facts and dates, as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryIn addition, his Affidavit dated July 1998 still states another date of receipt/inspection/acceptance of the subject deliveries to be July 21, 1998. x x x
Date of Report on Receipt and Acceptance Delivery Receipt (DR) No. Date of DR Sales Invoice (SI) No. Date of SI Annex July 5, 1998 5206-5207 June 30, 1998 5808-5806 July 2, 1998 28 July 7, 1998 5098-5099 June 30, 1998 5508-3509 July 2, 1998 29 July 7, 1998 [5208]-5209 July 3, 1998 5809-5810 July 3, 1998 30 July 7, 1998 5206-5207 July 3,1998 5806-5808 July 3, 1998 31
Also noted is a Certification dated December 15, 1998 xxx that [petitioner] DPI has fully delivered assorted elementary books amounting to P63,638,032.00 on July 3, 1998 under PR No. 5206 and on July 5, 1998 under DR No. 5207, and that the deliveries were duly received and accepted by DECS-ARMM Regional Secretary x x x. The Certification is under the letterhead of [the DepEd], which was renamed only in 2001 instead of [DECS], which was its designated name in 1998 when the transaction reportedly occurred, indicating that it was antedated, casting doubt on the documents and the transaction.
Moreover, DECS Regional Secretary xxx issued three Inspection Reports bearing different serial numbers of [SI] and dates, as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarye) Four different quantities of books ordered and delivered in PO, MRs, and Certification/Affidavit of receipt by Supply Officer II, none of which were witnessed by COA Auditor/TAS, casting doubt on the alleged delivery.
Date of Inspection Report Sales Invoice No. Date of Sales Invoice Annex July 5, 1998 5508-5509 July 2, 1998 34 July 7, 1998 5806-5808 July 3, 1998 35 July 7, 1998 5809-5810 July 3, 1998 36
Examination of documents shows that there were different quantities or copies of books received per documents submitted, as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryThe figures on the PO and DRs x x x do not agree with the figures on the totals of Memorandum Receipt (MRs) x x x for Equipment, Semi-expendable, and Non-expendable Property and Invoice Receipts (IRs) x x x signed by the respective Supply Officers of Maguindanao, Sulu I and II, Tawi-Tawi, and Lanao Sur I and II. Neither do these figures agree with the figures certified to have been allegedly received on July 2, 1998 by x x x, Supply Officer II, in his Certification dated July 24, 1998 and Affidavit of August 28, 2008, respectively x x x.
Per Document PO DR MRs/IRs Certification of SO II Affidavit of SO II Quantity (in copies) 543,030/543,022 543,022 542,722 542,822 593,022
Moreover, the volume of the books allegedly delivered notwithstanding, all the foregoing receipt and acceptance of deliveries by DECS-ARMM x x x were not witnessed by any of the Auditors or Technical Audit Specialists of COA assigned in the DECS-ARMM Division Schools concerned.
3) Review supporting documents on requisition, purchase order, receipt and acceptance and invoice of property shows an unwarranted override of functions and responsibility by an approving official, violating internal control on segregation of duties and responsibilities.
Examination shows that despite the substantial amount of P63,638,032.60, the RIV x x x was certified by x x x Supply Officer I, instead of by x x x Supply Officer II, and approved by DECS-ARMM Secretary x x x. The PO was recommended for approval by Regional Secretary x x x and approved by the ARMM Governor, x x x.
On the alleged delivery of books, examination of invoices and receipts revealed that it was DECS Regional Secretary x x x and not the Supply Officer II who received the books as shown by his signature on the [SI] Nos. 5806 and 5808 x x x and [DR] Nos. 5206 and 5207 x x x all dated July 3, 1998. Thereafter, he issued five reports on receipt and acceptance of deliveries, and upon inspection, three Inspection Reports, as discussed in Finding #2.d hereof.
Also, the undated and unnumbered MRs and IRs x x x signed by the respective Supply Officers of Maguindanao, Sulu I and II, Tawi-Tawi, and Lanao Sur I and II, state that the alleged textbooks have all been received by them from DECS-ARMM Secretary x x x, indicating that it was really [the] Secretary x x x who received the books. The [IRs] x x x however are under the letterhead of the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) instead of DECS-ARMM and are not signed by the secretary who transferred the books to the respective Supply Officers.
It is significant to note that receipt/acceptance of deliveries in government is normally a responsibility of the Administrative/Supply/Property Officer. The receipt/acceptance and inspection of alleged deliveries by the DECS-ARMM Secretary who also approved the RTV and recommended the approval of the purchase order, [are] not in accordance with standard government procurement procedure as [they violate] internal control on segregation of duties an functions. The involvement of senior [officials] at almost all stages of the transaction is not in order, and signifies override of functionand responsibility which belong to the Supply/Property Officer.
4) Copies of exceipts of audited Balance Sheet of DECS-ARMM as of December 31, 1999 and 2000 show no Inventory of Books amounting to P63,638,032, belying the MRs/ERs for books issued by the Supply Officers of six division schools. x x x
Verification of the copies of the excerpts of the audited Final Trial Balance of DECS-ARMM, Cotabato City as of December 31, 1999 and 2000 furnished by the COA ARMM x x x showed the balance of the account Fixed Assets-Furniture, Fixtures, Equipment and Books to be only P4,624,023.46 and P4,705,693.46, respectively, indicating that no books costing P63,638,032 were purchased/delivered in 1998.
xxxx
5) Certified copies of the audited Financial Statements of the [petitioner] DPI for 1997-1998 and 2000-2001, furnished by the SEC to the FAIO do not show that the P63,638,032 transaction transpired in 1998, casting doubt on the veracity of the money claim.41cralawlawlibrary
xxx that this came about when the then DECS-ARMM informed his Office that the Sis and DRs signed by DECS-ARMM [Regional] Secretary xxx was not in accordance with their practice that it is the Supply Officer who is supposed to sign these documents; that to rectify this, another set was signed by x x x, Supply Officer I, thus resulting in two different signatories in the same set of Sis and DRs.43cralawlawlibraryHowever, in the instant Petition, the counsel for petitioner DPI reasoned that:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
xxx Considering the volume of the textbooks delivered, it is not difficult to appreciate that there were two representatives or responsible officers of the agency who worked together to receive the textbooks. It is not difficult to appreciate either that one officer signed the first copy of the [DR] while the other signed the second copy of the receipt. xxx44cralawlawlibraryIf, indeed, there was an actual delivery of the subject textbooks, we cannot understand why petitioner DPI would have two versions of the story. Clearly, this is another reason to doubt the truthfulness of petitioner DPI's money claim.
Since there was no appropriation for the purchase of the subject textbooks, the respondent COA had reason to deny the money claim as Section 29(1), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution provides that: "No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law."
- There are no records to show that the funds were available when DECS-ARMM entered into contract with [petitioner DPI] because SARO No. B-98-03383 dated October 10, 1998 was released by DBM for payment of salaries and compensation benefits of 490 positions for Teacher I, but without the corresponding Notice of Cash Allocation thus the allotment obligated became a prior year's accounts payable of the Department;
- The DBM issued two (2) Notices of Cash Allocation (NCA) for the SARO cited in (a) above. NCA No. 091427 dated May 5, 1999 was transferred to DECS-ARMM under ADA No. 99-7-049 for payment of salaries, while NCA No. 091094 dated April 22, 1999 was reverted to the Bureau of Treasury on December 31, 1999. As stated by the DepEd Secretary, only one accounts payable was recorded in the OSEC books chargeable against the SARO to cover payment of personal services only.46
[I]t is the general policy of the Court to sustain the decisions of administrative authorities, especially one that was constitutionally created like herein respondent COA, not only on the basis of the doctrine of separation of powers, but also of their presumed expertise in the laws they are entrusted to enforce. It is, in fact, an oft-repeated rule that findings of administrative agencies are accorded not only respect but also finality when the decision and order are not tainted with unfairness or arbitrariness that would amount to grave abuse of discretion. x x x51cralawlawlibrary
Such is the situation in the instant case.cralawred
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The assailed Decision dated September 29, 2010 and the Resolution dated December 29, 2011 of the respondent COA are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Sereno, C. J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Bersamin, Villarama, Jr., Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.
Peralta, J., on official leave.
Leonen, J., on official leave.
Jardeleza, J., no part. (prior OSG action)
Endnotes:
1Director Villanueva v. Commission on Audit, 493 Phil. 887, 906 (2005).
2Rollo, pp. 3-32. The instant Petition was filed under Rule 65, in relation to Rule 64, of the Rules of Court. It must be noted, however, that the instant Petition was filed beyond the period provided in Section 3, Rule 64 of the Rules of Court. Under the said Section, if a motion for reconsideration is filed before the Commission on Audit and the motion is denied, the aggrieved party may file the petition within the remaining period, but which shall not be less than five (5) days in any event, reckoned from the notice of denial. In this case, petitioner alleged that it received a copy of the assailed Decision on October 11, 2010; that it filed a Motion for Reconsideration on November 11, 2010; and that it received the assailed Resolution, denying its Motion for Reconsideration, on March 2, 2012. Accordingly, it only had five days from March 2, 2012 or until March 7, 2012 within which to file the instant Petition. Records, however, show that the instant Petition was filed on April 2, 2012.
3 Id. at 33-40; penned by Chairman Reynaldo A. Villar and Commissioners Juanito G. Espino, Jr. and Evelyn R. San Buenaventura.
4 Id. at 41-46; penned by Chairperson Ma. Gracia M. Pujido Tan and Commissioners Juanito G. Espino, Jr. and Heidi L. Mendoza.
5 Id. at 47-51.
6 Sec. 19. Valid Prior Years Obligations. The DBM is authorized to approve the payment of valid prior years unbooked obligations as certified by the COA. Out of the agency appropriations authorized in this Act, the DBM may identify in the fund release documents the amounts due to cover valid prior years unbooked obligations. x x x
7 GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 2007.
8Rollo, p. 34.
9 Id.
10 Records, COA CP Case No. 2008-045, pp. 414-418.
11Rollo, p. 34.
12 Id. at 79-86. The amount claimed in the letter dated September 22, 2008 is P63,638,975.00, not P63,638,032.00. According to petitioner DPI, the discrepancy was a result of the difference in the quantity of the textbooks ordered. In the first copy of the Purchase Order (PO), it states that 53,000 copies of a certain book, with a unit cost of P117.90, were ordered; but in the second copy of the PO, it states that 53,008 copies of the same book were ordered. Thus, in the first PO, the total amount is P63,638,032; while in the second PO, the total amount is P63,638,975 (Id. at 20-21). However, it must be noted that the exact amount should be P63,638,975.20.
13 Id. at 80.
14 Id. at 36.
15 Id.
16 Records, COA CP Case No. 2008-045, pp. 280-418.
17Rollo, p. 39.
18 Id. at 38.
19 Id. at 52.
20 Id. at 38.
21 As of December 31, 1999 and 2000, Records, COA CP Case No. 2008-045, pp. 366-369.
22 For the years 1997-1998 and 2000-2001, Records, COA CP Case No. 2008-045, pp. 397-405.
23Rollo, p. 38.
24 Id. at 37.
25 Records, COA CP Case No. 2008-045, p. 322.
26 The amount in the SARO is not the same as the amount claimed by petitioner DPI.
27Rollo, pp. 38-39.
28 Id. at 37.
29 Id. at 39.
30 Id. at 15.
31 Id. at 195-196.
32 Id. at 17, 23 and 195.
33 Id. at 69-75.
34 Id. at 114.
35 Id. at 9-14, 18, 22-23 and 195.
36 Id. at 26-28 and 196.
37 Id. at 181-186.
38 Id. at 186-187.
39Delos Santos v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 198457, August 13, 2013, 703 SCRA 501, 513 citing Veloso v. Commission on Audit, 672 Phil. 419 (2011).
40 Id.
41 Records, COA CP Case No. 2008-045, pp. 290-299.
42Suarez v. Commission on Audit, 355 Phil. 527, 539 (1998).
43 Records, COA CP Case No. 2008-045, p. 291.
44Rollo, p.21.
45 Id. at 38-39.
46 Records, COA CP Case No. 2008-045, p. 415.
47 Id. at 860-861.
48F.F. Mañacop Construction Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 334 Phil. 208, 214 (1997).
49 Section 26. General jurisdiction. — The authority and powers of the Commission shall extend to and comprehend all matters relating to auditing procedures, systems and controls, the keeping of the general accounts of the Government, the preservation of vouchers pertaining thereto for a period of ten years, the examination and inspection of the books, records, and papers relating to those accounts; and the audit and settlement of the accounts of all persons respecting funds or property received or held by them in an accountable capacity, as well as the examination, audit, and settlement of all debts and claims of any sort due from or owing to the Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities. The said jurisdiction extends to all government-owned or controlled corporations, including their subsidiaries, and other self-governing boards, commissions, or agencies of the Government, and as herein prescribed, including non-governmental entities subsidized by the government, those funded by donations through the government, those required to pay levies or government share, and those for which the government has put up a counterpart fund or those partly funded by the government.
50 Ordaining and Instituting a Government Auditing Code of the Philippines.
51Yap v. Commission on Audit, 633 Phil. 174, 195 (2010).