G.R. No. 223762 - TOMAS N. JOSON III, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is denied for lack of merit and ND No. L-09-5-005 (2004-2007) dated May 14, 2009 in the total amount of P155,036,681.77 is hereby affirmed. [11] Petitioner then filed a petition for exclusion from liability arguing that he should not be held liable for the disallowed amount since the determination of whether a prospective bidder is eligible or not is the exclusive responsibility of the BAC and if there is indeed a liability, the members of the BAC should be held liable since they are the persons directly responsible for the transaction. The COA in its Decision No. 2015-019 [12] denied the petition. The COA found Petitioner liable for the disallowed amount since he failed to exercise due diligence in the performance of his duty. Had he done so, Petitioner could have discovered the inadequacies of the contract's supporting documents and the winning bidder's ineligibility. Being a signatory in the contracts, Petitioner is presumed to have prior knowledge that the bidding process was tainted with ineligibility. As such, Petitioner cannot seek refuge from the Arias doctrine. The fallo thereof reads: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petitions of former Governor Tomas N. Joson III and of Provincial Accountant Romeo T. Del Mundo, both of the Provincial Government of Nueva Ecija, for exclusion from liability under Notice of Disallowance No. L-09-05-005 (2004-2007) dated May 14, 2010 are hereby DENIED. Accordingly, petitioners Joson and Del Mundo, together with the other persons named liable, shall remain solidarity liable for the subject disallowance. [13] Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration [14] of the COA decision, but the same was denied by the COA in its Resolution dated January 19, 2016. Hence this Petition raising the following issues: I. WHETHER RESPONDENT COMMISSION ON AUDIT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT HELD THAT PETITIONER FAILED TO EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTY RELATIVE TO THE AWARD OF THE CONTRACT. II. WHETHER RESPONDENT COMMISSION ON AUDIT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT COMPLETELY DISREGARDED THE FACT THAT THE PROJECT WAS COMPLETED, ACCEPTED, AND NOW BEING UTILIZED BY THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT. [15] Ultimately, the issue to be resolved in this case is whether the COA gravely abused its discretion in holding petitioner personally liable for the disallowed amount of Php155,036,681.77. Petitioner alleged that the COA gravely abused its discretion in holding him personally liable for the disallowed amount. He claimed that the BAC has the responsibility to check and determine the eligibility of the prospective bidders. Thus, petitioner, as head of the procuring entity and the local chief executive, has the right to reasonably rely on the faithful performance by the BAC of its duties. Petitioner further claimed that there was no reason for him