DECISION NO.

2020-042
January 10, 2020

Subj e c t : Petition for Review of Mayor Ace William E. Cerilles, Municipal Government of
Dumalinao, Zamboanga del Sur, of Commission on Audit Regional Office No. IX
Decision No. 2015-11 dated June 15, 2015, which affirmed Notice of Disallowance
No. 12-001-100-(11) dated January 12, 2012, on the procurement of 10 units of heavy
equipment in 2011, amounting to P33,081,464.28

DECISION

FACTS OF THE CASE

1
Before this Commission is the Petition for Review of Mayor Ace William E. Cerilles, Municipal Government of
Dumalinao, Zamboanga del Sur, of Commission on Audit (COA) Regional Office (RO) No. IX Decision No. 2015-11 dated June
15, 2015. The decision affirmed Notice of Disallowance (ND) No. 12-001-100-(11) dated January 12, 2012, on the procurement of
10 units of heavy equipment in 2011, in the total amount of P33,081,464.28.

2 3
Petitioner received the ND on February 7, 2012 and filed an appeal therefrom on July 17, 2012. The Regional Director
4
(RD), COA RO No. IX, rendered Decision No. 2015-11, a copy of which was received by the petitioner on July 18, 2015.
5
Petitioner filed this Petition for Review on August 7, 2015, or after 178 days from receipt of the ND, thus, within the
reglementary period of 6 months or 180 days provided under Section 3, Rule VII of the 2009 Revised Rules of Procedure of the
COA.

The Municipal Government of Dumalinao purchased 10 units of heavy equipment under Purchase Order (PO) No. 2011-01-
6 7
001 dated January 20, 2011 and covered by Disbursement Voucher (DV) No. 100-2011-05-512 dated May 2, 2011, detailed as
follows:

No. Description Quantity Unit Cost Amount

Road Roller (SAKAI TW41) with
1 Canopy Series No. T-1073 1 P2,309,000.00 P2,309,000.00
Surplus Japan
Pay Loader (TCM 50B) Cabin
2 1 4,915,000.00 4,915,000.00
Type Japan Surplus
Grader (Mitsubishi L62H) Cabin
3 1 4,935,000.00 4,935,000.00
Type Japan Surplus
Bulldozer (CAT D6C) Surplus
4 1 4,715,000.00 4,715,000.00
Japan
Backhoe (Hitachi UH07) Surplus
5 1 5,375,000.00 5,375,000.00
Japan
10 Wheeler Dump Truck
6 (International Harvester)Surplus 2 2,855,000.00 5,710,000.00
Unit
10 Wheeler Boom Truck (Isuzu)
7 1 2,945,000.00 2,945,000.00
Surplus Japan
8 12 Wheeler Self Loader (Isuzu) 1 2,825,000.00 2,825,000.00
6 Wheeler Garbage Compactor
9 Truck (Mitsubishi Canter) 1 1,225,000.00 1,225,000.00
Surplus
Total P34,954,000.00
Less: Tax 1,872,535.72
Net P33,081,464.28

On post-audit, the Audit Team Leader (ATL) and the Supervising Auditor (SA) issued the ND in the amount of
P33,081,464.28 due to the following:

1) There was no pre-procurement conference conducted in said procurement with approved budget of more
8
than P2,000,000.00, in violation of Section 20.1 of the 2009 Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations
9
(RIRR) of Republic Act (RA) No. 9184;

2) The pre-bid conference was conducted only in five calendar days instead of the required 12 calendar days
10
before the deadline for the submission and receipt of bids, in violation of Section 22.2 of the 2009 RIRR;

3) The procurement of 10 units of heavy equipment was not included in the Annual Procurement Plan (APP) of
11
the municipality for calendar year (CY) 2011, in violation of Section 7.2 of the 2009 RIRR;
 11
the municipality for calendar year (CY) 2011, in violation of Section 7.2 of the 2009 RIRR;

4) The Purchase Request (PR), Invitation to Bid and PO made specific reference to brand names of the heavy
12
equipment to be procured, in violation of Section 18 of the 2009 RIRR;

5) The amounts of bidder’s bond or sureties posted by all three participating bidders were insufficient or less
than 5%, equivalent to P1,750,000.00, of the Approved Budget for the Contract (ABC) of P35,000,000.00, in
13 14
violation of Sections 27.1 and 27.2 of the 2009 RIRR;
15
6) The DV for the procurement was not presented for pre-audit, in violation of Section 3.1 of COA Circular
16
No. 2009-002 dated May 18, 2009;

7) The performance bond posted by supplier ESR General Merchandise, the winning bidder, was undated;

8) There was no print out of the continuous posting of the Invitation to Bid in the Philippine Government
Electronic Procurement System (PhilGEPS) website for seven calendar days from the date of its
17
advertisement in violation of Section 21.2.1 (b) of the 2009 RIRR;

9) The basic warranty coverage for 12 months was not signed by the supplier; and

10) The Certificate of Posting of the Invitation to Bid in any conspicuous places did not mention the number of
18
days that it was posted in violation of Section 21.2.1 (c) of the 2009 RIRR.

The following persons were held liable for the transaction:

Name Position/Designation Nature of Participation

Mr. Ace William E. Cerilles Mayor Approved the transaction
Certified as to the legality
Ms. Elma Fe Ema-Bravo Municipal Accountant and completeness of the
documents
Bids and Awards
Presided over the BAC
Mr. Hermes B. Cabales Committee (BAC)
proceedings
Chairman
ESR General Merchandise Supplier Received the payment

19
Mayor Cerilles filed an appeal, which was denied by the RD in the assailed decision. The RD ruled that the disbursement
for the transaction was irregular as it was incurred without adhering to established rules, regulations, procedural guidelines,
policies, principles/practices that have gained recognition in law.

20
Hence, this Petition for Review, contending that:

1) Personal liability is not automatic in case of disallowance;

2) There is no finding of malice or bad faith in the questioned decision, no complaint from a losing bidder, and
no finding of overpricing that would cause damage or injury to the government; and

3) The disallowance was merely based on the alleged deficiencies, which if weighed against the petitioner,
would be unfair and unjust, as the amount involved is too big to refund.

21
In his Answer, the RD re-pleaded his factual presentation in COA RO No. IX Decision No. 2015-11, and stated that since
there were no new material arguments presented in this Petition for Review, he stands firm in his decision to affirm the
disallowance.

ISSUE

The issue to be resolved is whether or not the Petition for Review is meritorious.

DISCUSSION

This Commission finds no cogent reason to depart from the decision of the RD.

The procurement of 10 units of heavy equipment is both illegal and irregular for not complying with the pertinent
provisions of RA No. 9184 and its 2009 RIRR, and COA Circular No. 2009-002, as discussed below:

22 23
1) No pre-procurement conference was conducted pursuant to Section 20 of RA No. 9184 and Section 20.1
24
of its 2009 RIRR. The pre-procurement meeting on October 20, 2010, based on the excerpt of the Minutes
attached to the case records, discussed only the requests of Mayor Cerilles to the BAC to facilitate the
posting of the procurement since the bid quotations are needed by the Veterans Bank to determine the
maximum loan amount to be granted to the municipality for the procurement of heavy equipment; the
Sanggunian to facilitate compliance with the loan requirements particularly the issuance of a resolution for
the authority to contract with Veterans Bank; and the Municipal Administrator to coordinate with Veterans
Bank for the processing of the loan.
 Bank for the processing of the loan.

The pre-procurement conference is the forum where all officials involved in the procurement meet and
discuss all aspects of a specific procurement activity, which includes the technical specifications, the ABC,
the applicability and appropriateness of the recommended method of procurement and the related
milestones, bidding documents and availability of the budget released for the project, which were not
discussed in the meeting on October 20, 2010. In other words, said meeting was not the pre-procurement
conference contemplated under the law.

25
2) Pre-bid conference was conducted within four, instead of 12 calendar days before the deadline for the
26
submission and receipt of bids pursuant to Section 22.2 of the 2009 RIRR.

27
Based on the Minutes of Pre-Bidding Conference and Attendance Sheet, the BAC conducted the pre-bid
conference on December 10, 2010, which was only four days before the deadline for the submission of the
bids on December 14, 2010, as also stated therein.

28
3) The Invitation to Apply for Eligibility and to Bid (IAEB) for the procurement made specific reference to
brand names Sakai, Mitsubishi, CAT, Hitachi and Isuzu, instead of providing relevant characteristics and/or
performance requirements. As a result, the procurements were limited to the brands of heavy equipment
29
specified therein thereby depriving the submission of bids of other suppliers. This violates Section 18 of
both RA No. 9184 and its 2009 RIRR, and runs afoul to the competitiveness in government procurement.

4 ) The participating bidders posted insufficient sureties or bidder’s bond that is less than 5% of the ABC,
contrary to Section 27 30 of RA No. 9184 and Sections 27.1 31 and 27.2 32 of its 2009 RIRR.

The ABC for this transaction is P35,000,000.00, 5% of which is P1,750,000.00 - the minimum amount of bid
security in case of surety bonds, required of each bidder. Thus, the three bidders (i.e., ESR General
Merchandise, Asia Surplus and Tire Supplies, and Primates Gen. Merchandise) which posted a surety bond
of P700,000.00 each, based on the Abstract of Bids as Read Out, 33 should have been disqualified from
participating in the bidding process.

34
5) The DV covering the transaction was not presented for pre-audit, contrary to Section 3.1 of COA Circular
No. 2009-002.

The petitioner’s contention that the DV was already pre-audited as evidenced by the signature on it of the
late Mr. Edgardo S. Café, State Auditor II, Audit Team Member, Office of the Auditor, Audit Group F, Audit
Team No. 6, Dumalinao, Zamboanga del Sur, is not supported with evidence. It was found upon audit that
35
the DV lacked the signature of Mr. Café and the pre-audit stamp of the SA or the ATL pursuant to
36 37
Sections 5.1 and 8.1 of COA Circular No. 2009-002.

38
6) ESR Gen. Merchandise submitted an undated Performance Bond casting doubt on the accuracy, integrity
and authenticity of the said financial document. Moreover, the validity of the performance bond cannot be
39
ascertained as it is undated. Thus, the purpose of posting a performance bond under Section 39.1 of the
2009 RIRR is defeated.

7) There was no printout of the continuous posting of the Invitation to Bid in the PhilGEPS website for seven
40
days, indicating that such requirement was not complied with, contrary to Section 21 of RA No. 9184 and
41 42
Sections 8.2.1 and 21.2.1(b) of its 2009 RIRR.
43
8) The basic warranty coverage was not signed by the supplier, casting doubt on its authenticity or validity.
The unsigned document produces no legal effect, a mere scrap of paper, which technically rendered the
44 45
absence of a warranty coverage required under Section 62(a) of RA No. 9184 and Section 62.1 of its
2009 RIRR.

46
9) The Certificate of Posting dated December 9, 2010 signed by the BAC Chairman and the BAC Secretariat
states only that the IAEB for the herein procurement was posted in conspicuous places (i.e., public market,
municipal hall and national newspaper) in Dumalinao, Zamboanga del Sur, without mentioning the number
47
of days that the IAEB was posted. This casts doubt on the compliance with Section 21.2.1(c) of the 2009
RIRR.

Petitioner failed to refute the above audit findings, thus, the ND is sustained.

48
As to the first argument, petitioner’s liability for the disallowance is anchored on Section 16.1.3 in relation to Section
49 50 51 52
16.1 of the 2009 Rules and Regulation on the Settlement of Accounts, and Sections 103 and 351 of Presidential Decree
53 54
(PD) No. 1445 and RA No. 7160, respectively.

Petitioner’s second and third arguments are unmeritorious. Petitioner was held liable for approving the transaction. He
55 56
approved BAC Resolution No. 01 dated December 16, 2010 to award the contract to ESR General Merchandise, and the DV
57
for the payment of the transaction. He was also the contracting officer to the Contract Agreement dated December 22, 2010 and
58
the Notice to Proceed dated January 20, 2011.

59
Section 37 of RA No. 9184 affords petitioner, as the Head of the Procuring Entity, the discretion to approve or disapprove
the award for the procurement. He is not precluded from rejecting the BAC recommendation for some compelling reasons, as in
this case, for he is expected to inquire on the regularity of the transaction before awarding the contract to the winning bidder.
Aside from this, petitioner himself violated the prohibition on reference to brand names under Section 18 of RA No. 9184 when he
specified the brands of heavy equipment to be procured in the PR.
 He approved the transactions, as above discussed. His liability for the herein disallowance would be his assent to award the
contract despite the non-compliance with the government procurement law.

The other members of the BAC, namely: Mr. Joemar E. Suganob, Mr. Albert Bingtan, Mr. Rizalina P. Tejas, and Mr. Renee
60
B. Carcallas, who passed BAC Resolution Nos. 01 and 012-017-2010 (undated) shall also be held liable under the ND for failing
to ensure that the municipality complied with RA No. 9184 and its 2009 RIRR.

61
The Supreme Court stressed in the case of Republic of the Philippines, et al., vs. Hon. Ignacio C. Capulong, et al. that the
rules, regulations and guidelines of bidding process should be strictly observed to ensure a fair, honest and competitive bidding.
Competitive bidding, as defined under Section 5(e) of RA No. 9184, refers to a method of procurement which is open to
participation by any interested party and which consists of the following processes: advertisement, pre-bid conference, eligibility
screening of prospective bidders, receipt and opening of bids, evaluation of bids, post-qualification, and award of contract, the
specific requirements and mechanics of which shall be defined in the IRR to be promulgated under this Act. Section 4(7) of PD
No. 1445 likewise mandates that all laws and regulations applicable to financial transactions shall be faithfully adhered to.

In view of violations of the pertinent provisions of RA No. 9184 and its 2009 RIRR and COA Circular No. 2009-002, this
case shall be referred to the Office of the Ombudsman for investigation and filing of appropriate charges, if warranted, against the
persons liable for the transaction.

RULING

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly,
Commission on Audit Regional Office No. IX Decision No. 2015-11 dated June 15, 2015, which sustained the liability of Mayor
Ace William E. Cerilles, Municipal Government of Dumalinao, Zamboanga del Sur, under Notice of Disallowance (ND) No. 12-
001-100-(11) dated January 12, 2012, on the procurement of 10 units of heavy equipment in the total amount of P33,081,464.28,
is hereby AFFIRMED. The other persons named liable for the disallowance shall remain liable therefor.

The Audit Team Leader and the Supervising Auditor concerned are directed to issue a Supplemental ND for the inclusion
of the other members of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) who passed BAC Resolution Nos. 01 dated December 16, 2010
and 012-017-2010 (undated), for the award of contracts to ESR General Merchandise without complying with the government
procurement procedures under Republic Act No. 9184 and its 2009 Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations.

Moreover, the Prosecution and Litigation Office, Legal Services Sector, this Commission, is hereby directed to forward the
case to the Office of the Ombudsman for investigation and filing of the appropriate charges, if warranted, against the persons
liable for the transaction.

SEPARATE OPINION
(SGD.) MICHAEL G. AGUINALDO
Chairperson

(SGD.) JOSE A. FABIA (SGD.) ROLAND C. PONDOC

Commissioner Commissioner

Attested by:

(SGD.) NILDA B. PLARAS

Director IV
Commission Secretariat

Copy furnished:

Atty. Domingo T. Redelosa IV

Counsel for Petitioner Ace William E. Cerilles
Suite No. 1, Arcada de Cerilles
B. Aquino St., Pagadian City

Mayor Ace William E. Cerilles

Municipality of Dumalinao, Zamboanga del Sur
The Municipal Accountant
Municipality of Dumalinao, Zamboanga del Sur

The Audit Team Leader/Supervising Auditor

Municipal Government of Dumalinao, Zamboanga del Sur

The Regional Director

Commission on Audit Regional Office No. IX
Cabatangan Hills, Zamboanga City

The Director
Information Technology Office
Systems and Technical Services Sector

The Director
Prosecution and Litigation Office

The Assistant Commissioners

Local Government Sector
Commission Proper Adjudication and Secretariat Support Services Sector

All of this Commission

ESZ/EEL/DVG/JRC/ACL
CPCN 2015-0810

1 Pursuant to Rule VII, 2009 Revised Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Audit (COA).
2 As stated in page 2 of the Appeal Memorandum, rollo, p. 505; and as stated in page 1 of COA Regional Office No. IX Decision; rollo, p. 452.
3 Affidavit of Service; rollo, page 494.
4 Page 2 of Petition for Review; rollo, p. 27.
5 Stamp receipt on page 1 of the Petition for Review of the COA Commission Secretariat with notation “filed via registered mail on August 7, 2015;” rollo, p. 28.
6 Rollo, p. 302.
7 Rollo, p. 461.
8 Prior to the advertisement or the issuance of the Invitation to Bid/Request for Expression of Interest for each procurement undertaken through a public bidding, the BAC
[Bids and Awards Committee] , through its Secretariat, shall call for a pre-procurement conference. The pre-procurement conference shall be attended by the BAC, the
Secretariat, the unit or officials, including consultants hired by the procuring entity, who prepared the Bidding Documents and the draft Invitation to Bid/Request for
Expression of Interest for each procurement. During this conference, the participants, led by the BAC, shall:
a) Confirm the description and scope of the contract, the ABC [Approved Budget for the Contract], and contract duration.
b) Ensure that the procurement is in accordance with the project and annual procurement plans;
c) Determine the readiness of the procurement at hand, including, among other aspects, the following:
i) availability of appropriations and programmed budget for contract;
ii) completeness of the Bidding Documents and their adherence to relevant general procurement guidelines;
iii) completion of the detailed engineering according to the prescribed standards in the case of infrastructure projects; and
iv) confirmation of the availability of ROW [Right-of-Way] and the ownership of affected properties.
d) Review, modify and agree on the criteria for eligibility screening, evaluation, and post-qualification;
e) Review and adopt the procurement schedule, including deadlines and timeframes, for the different activities; and
f) Reiterate and emphasize the importance of confidentiality, in accordance with Section 19 of this IRR, and the applicable sanctions and penalties, as
well as agree on measures to ensure compliance with the foregoing.
9 Government Procurement Reform Act.
10 The pre-bid conference shall be held at least twelve (12) calendar days before the deadline for the submission and receipt of bids. If the procuring entity determines that,
by reason of the method, nature, or complexity of the contract to be bid or when international participation will be more advantageous to the GOP [Government of the
Philippines], a longer period for the preparation of bids is necessary, the pre-bid conference shall be held at least thirty (30) calendar days before the deadline for the
submission and receipt of bids.
11 No procurement shall be undertaken unless it is in accordance with the approved APP [Annual Procurement Plan] of the procuring entity. The APP shall bear the
approval of the Head of the Procuring Entity or second-ranking official designated by the Head of the Procuring Entity to act on his behalf, and must be consistent with its
duly approved yearly budget.
12 Reference to Brand Names Specifications for the procurement of goods shall be based on relevant characteristics and/or performance requirements. Reference to brand
names shall not be allowed.
13 All bids shall be accompanied by a bid security, payable to the procuring entity concerned as a guarantee that the successful bidder shall, within ten (10) calendar days
or less, as indicated in the Instructions to Bidders, from receipt of the notice of award, enter into contract with the procuring entity and furnish the performance security
required in Section 39 of this IRR, except when Section 37.1 of this IRR allows a longer period. Failure to enclose the required bid security in the form and amount
prescribed herein shall automatically disqualify the bid concerned.
14 The procuring entity shall indicate in the Bidding Documents the acceptable forms of bid security that bidders may opt to use, which shall include the Bid Securing
Declaration provided in Section 27.5 of this IRR and at least one (1) other form, the amount of which shall be equal to a percentage of the ABC in accordance with the
following schedule:

Amount of Bid Security

Form of Bid Security
(Equal to Percentage of the ABC)
xxx
c) Surety bond callable upon demand issued by a surety
or insurance company duly certified by the Insurance Five percent (5%)
Commission as authorized to issue such security.
xxx

15 Pre-audit shall be selectively reinstituted in national government agencies, local government units, and government-owned and controlled corporations with original
charters, as indicated in the attached list marked as Annex A and made integral part hereof, with any, some or all of the following transactions:
 xxx
3.1.5 payments for procurement of capital assets, goods and services;
xxx
16 Reinstituting Selective Pre-Audit on Government Transactions.
17 Except as otherwise provided in Sections 21.2.2 and 54.2 of this IRR and for the procurement of common-use goods and supplies, the Invitation to Bid/Request for
Expression of Interest shall be:
xxx
b) Posted continuously in the PhilGEPS [Philippine Government Electronic Procurement System] website, the website of the procuring entity concerned, if
available, and the website prescribed by the foreign government/foreign or international financing institution, if applicable, for seven (7) calendar days starting
on date of advertisement; and
xxx
18 Posted at any conspicuous place reserved for this purpose in the premises of the procuring entity concerned for seven (7) calendar days, if applicable, as certified by the
head of the BAC Secretariat of the procuring entity concerned.
19 Rollo, pp. 494-506.
20 Rollo, pp. 403-412.
21 Rollo, pp. 509-513.
22 Pre-Procurement Conference. — Prior to the issuance of the Invitation to Bid, the BAC is mandated to hold a pre-procurement conference on each and every
procurement, except those contracts below a certain level or amount specified in the IRR, in which case, the holding of the same is optional.

The pre-procurement conference shall assess the readiness of the procurement in terms of confirming the certification of availability of funds, as well as reviewing all
relevant documents in relation to their adherence to law. This shall be attended by the BAC, the unit or officials who prepared the bidding documents and the draft
Invitation to Bid, as well as consultants hired by the agency concerned and the representative of the end-user.

23 Supra, note 8.
24 Rollo, pp. 297-298.
25 The second ground of the ND stated five; rollo, p. 493.
26 Supra, note 10.
27 Rollo, pp. 490-491.
28 Rollo, p. 456.
29 Reference to Brand Names. – Specifications for the Procurement of Goods shall be based on relevant characteristics and/or performance requirements. Reference to
brand names shall not be allowed.
30 Bid Security. — All Bids shall be accompanied by a Bid security, which shall serve as a guarantee that, after receipt of the Notice of Award, the winning bidder shall
enter into contract with the Procuring Entity within the stipulated time and furnish the required performance security. The specific amounts and allowable forms of the Bid
security shall be prescribed in the IRR.
31 Supra, note 13.
32 Supra, note 14.
33 Rollo, p. 356.
34 Supra, note 15.
35 Supra note 7.
36 Pre-audit shall, in addition to the existing duties and functions, be the responsibility of the head of the auditing unit/audit team. In an auditing unit where a Supervising
Auditor (SA) and Audit Team Leader(s) (ATLs) are assigned, the pre-audit functions shall be discharged by the SA. Pre-audit functions in all other auditing units headed by
ATLs whether or not placed under the supervision of SAs shall be carried out by such ATLs.
37 The pre-audit action shall be evidenced by a pre-audit stamp with the following words impressed upon the face of the disbursement voucher or disposal contract and
their supporting documents: Pre-audited pursuant to COA Circular No. ______ dated ________ (See Annex B), duly signed and dated by the auditor.
38 Rollo, p. 339.
39 To guarantee the faithful performance by the winning bidder of its obligations under the contract in accordance with the Bidding Documents, it shall post a
performance security prior to the signing of the contract.
40 Advertising and Contents of the Invitation to Bid. — In line with the principle of transparency and competitiveness, all Invitations to Bid for contracts under
competitive bidding shall be advertised by the Procuring Entity in such manner and for such length of time as may be necessary under the circumstances, in order to ensure
the widest possible dissemination thereof, such as, but not limited to, posting in the Procuring Entity's premises, in newspapers of general circulation, the G-EPS and the
website of the Procuring Entity, if available. xxx (underscoring supplied)
41 The Electronic Bulletin Board
a) The PhilGEPS shall have a centralized electronic bulletin board for posting procurement opportunities, notices, awards and reasons for award. All Procuring
Entities are required to post all procurement opportunities, results of bidding and related information in the PhilGEPS bulletin board. (Underlining supplied)
42 Supra, note 17.
43 Rollo, pp. 324-325.
44 Warranty. — (a) For the procurement of Goods, in order to assure that manufacturing defects shall be corrected by the supplier, manufacturer, or distributor, as the case
may be, for a specific time after performance of the contract, a warranty shall be required from the contract awardee for such period of time as may be provided in the IRR,
the obligation for which shall be covered by either retention money in the amount equivalent to a percentage of every progress payment, or a special bank guarantee
equivalent to a percentage of the total contract price, to be provided in the IRR. The said amounts shall only be released after the lapse of the warranty period, provided
that the Goods supplied are free from defects and all the conditions imposed under the contract have been fully met.
45 For the procurement of Goods, in order to assure that manufacturing defects shall be corrected by the supplier, a warranty security shall be required from the contract
awardee for a minimum period of three (3) months, in the case of Expendable Supplies, or a minimum period of one (1) year, in the case of Non-expendable Supplies, after
acceptance by the Procuring Entity of the delivered supplies. xxx
46 Rollo, p. 304.
47 Supra, note 18.
48 Public officers who approve or authorize expenditures shall be liable for losses arising out of their negligence or failure to exercise the diligence of a good father of a
family.
49 The liability of public officers and other persons for audit disallowances/charges shall be determined on the basis of (a) the nature of the disallowance/charge; (b) the
duties and responsibilities or obligations of officers/employees concerned; (c) the extent of their participation in the disallowed/charged transaction; and (d) the amount of
damage or loss to the government xxx.
50 As prescribed in COA Circular No. 2009-006 dated September 15, 2009.
51 General Liability for Unlawful Expenditures. — Expenditures of government funds or uses of government property in violation of law or regulations shall be a personal
liability of the official or employee found to be directly responsible therefor.
52 General Liability for Unlawful Expenditures. — Expenditures of funds or use of property in violation of this Title and other laws shall be a personal liability of the
official or employee responsible therefor.
53 Government Auditing Code of the Philippines.
54 Local Government Code of 1991.
55 Rollo, pp. 278-279.
56 Supra, note 7.
57 Rollo, pp. 280-282.
58 Rollo, p. 283.
59 Notice and Execution of Award . — Within a period not exceeding fifteen (15) calendar days from the determination and declaration by the BAC of the Lowest
59 Notice and Execution of Award . — Within a period not exceeding fifteen (15) calendar days from the determination and declaration by the BAC of the Lowest
Calculated Responsive Bid or Highest Rated Responsive Bid, and the recommendation of the award, the Head of the Procuring Entity or his duly authorized representative
shall approve or disapprove the said recommendation. x x x
60 Rollo, pp. 276-277.
61 G.R. No. 93359, July 12, 1991.