Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE , premises considered, the herein appeal is DENIED . The subject NDs are AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION consistent with our ruling embodied in NGS Cluster 7 Decision No. 2013-005 dated [November 21,] 2013. Accordingly, ND Nos.
WHEREFORE , premises considered, the herein appeal is DENIED . The subject NDs are AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION consistent with our ruling embodied in NGS Cluster 7 Decision No. 2013-005 dated [November 21,] 2013. Accordingly, ND Nos. 2013-001(12) and 2013-002(13) both dated [August 30,] 2013 in the amounts of [PHP] 500,903,948.33 and [PHP] 239,104,501.88[,] respectively, or a total of [PHP] 740,008,450.21, are offset and reduced by the actual amount of costs incurred by AMPI in the supply, production[,] and delivery of driver's license cards. This decision, however, is not final and is subject to automatic review by the Commission Proper, pursuant to Section 7, Rule V of the 2009 Revised Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Audit. [34] (Emphasis in the original) COA Ruling By way of automatic review, COA, in its Decision No. 2016-260 dated September 26, 2016, upheld the COA NGS-Cluster 7 Decision Nos. 2013-005 and 2014-006. The dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE , premises considered, [COA NGS-]Cluster 7 Decision Nos. 2013-005 dated November 21, 2013 and 2014-006 dated May 27, 2014 are hereby APPROVED . Accordingly, [ND] Nos. 2013-001(12) and 2013-002(13) both dated August 30, 2013, in the amounts of [PHP] 500,903,948.33 and [PHP] 239,104,501.88, respectively, or a total of [PHP] 740,008,450.21, are reduced by [PHP] 437,846,951.63, or a net disallowance of [PHP] 302,161,498.58. [LTO] is also directed to require [AMPI] to immediately transfer the operation and management of the driver's license facilities to . . . LTO as provided under the [BOT] contract between LTO and AMPI as well as all buildings, facilities, equipment, furniture, and other paraphernalia supplied by AMPI under said contract. 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 appropriate charges, if warranted, against the persons liable for the transaction. [35] (Emphasis in the original) COA held that the disallowance of payments made by LTO to AMPI was proper. It emphasized that the Original Contract between LTO and AMPI was a BOT agreement, which required AMPI to transfer all buildings, equipment, and facilities to LTO at the end of the contract period. The last Supplemental Agreement dated September 22, 2000 reaffirmed this arrangement. [36] Moreover, COA found that AMPI's billings from January 2012 to June 2013 included, on top of the fee of PHP 97.45, additional charges for foreign exchange and wage adjustments, as well as 12% value-added tax (VAT). These terms were no longer applicable after the expiration of the contract. COA also noted that the correct VAT rate for government contractors is only 5%, pursuant to Revenue Regulations No. 4-2007. [37] COA, thus, found irregularity in the continued supply of licenses by AMPI, as the BOT arrangement was not complied with, and LTO did not even demand such compliance. Nonetheless, it rec