Back to Search
JurisprudenceG.R. No. 246053 -

G.R. No. 246053 - LUIS RAYMUND F. VILLAFUERTE, JR., VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

En Banc

Cited Laws

RA 9184,RA 9184RA 3019
Share:

TL;DR — Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, Notice of Disallowance No. 2010-100-007(08) dated September 21, 2010 in the amount of P4,250,000.00 is AFFIRMED .

Decision

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, Notice of Disallowance No. 2010-100-007(08) dated September 21, 2010 in the amount of P4,250,000.00 is AFFIRMED . [13] As held by the COA RO V, circumstances surrounding the partial payment by the PG-CamSur to Regina Shipping support the finding that it was in fact an advance payment. The Deed of Absolute Sale of the vessel was completed and signed only on 25 March 2008 or more than three months after the partial payment on 19 December 2007. The Delivery Receipt issued by Regina Shipping was also dated 29 February 2008 or more than two months after the partial payment. The COA RO V noted the submission by petitioner and his co-appellants of the required documentation for the procurement of the vessel in their appeal. Nonetheless, their earlier non-submission of the documents enumerated in the NS/ND, which are required by applicable COA rules and regulations, as well as RA 9184, made the transaction an irregular and illegal expenditure. Likewise, it was pointed out by the COA RO V that PG-CamSur adopted the alternative mode of direct contracting instead of competitive bidding as mandated by the procurement law. However, conditions surrounding the procurement of the shipping vessel failed to support the agency's use of direct contracting. Finally, petitioner cannot be absolved from liability under the doctrine in Arias v. Sandiganbayan . [14] Decision of the COA Proper On 29 December 2015, the COA Proper, through Decision No. 2015-481, dismissed the petition for review filed by petitioner and his co-appellants for being filed out of time, Viz .; WHEREFORE , premises considered, the petition for review is hereby DISMISSED for being filed out of time. Accordingly, Commission on Audit Regional Office No. V Decision No. 2012-L-033 dated November 5, 2012 affirming the Notice of Disallowance No. 2010-100-007 (2008) dated September 21, 2010 on the payment to Regina Shipping Lines, Inc. for the purchase of a second-hand shipping vessel in the amount of P4,250,000.00 is FINAL AND EXECUTORY . The Prosecution and Litigation Office, Legal Services Sector, is further directed to refer this case to the Office of the Ombudsman for the filing of appropriate charges against erring officials and employees of the Provincial Government of Camarines Sur, if warranted. [15] (Emphases Suppplied) While the first motion for extension for 60 days filed by petitioner and his co-appellants was granted, the second motion for extension they filed was denied. Accordingly, the period to file their petition for review was set until 14 January 2013. However, the petition for review was filed through registered mail only on 11 February 2013 and was received by the COA Proper only on 27 February 2013. Hence, the COA Proper dismissed the petition for review for being filed out of time. As ruled by the COA Proper, petitions for extension are directed to the discretion of the court and fa