G.R. No. 252411 - METRO LAUNDRY SERVICES, REPRESENTED BY ROWELA T. TINDOG, HEIR OF PROPRIETOR, MS. ELIZABETH T. TINDOG, VS. THE COMMISSION PROPER, COMMISSION ON AUDIT, AND THE CITY OF MANILA.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the Petition for Money Claim of [Metro Laundry], represented by its Proprietor, Ms. Elizabeth T. Tindog, against the City Government of Manila, for payment of laundry services rendered to the [OMMC] from April to December 2011, amounting to [P]1,851,814.45, is hereby DENIED . [41] (Emphases in the original.) COA Chairperson Michael G. Aguinaldo (Chairperson Aguinaldo) dissented [42] in the outright denial of Metro Laundry's money claim. Without discounting the admitted illegality of the transaction, Chairperson Aguinaldo cited case laws which upheld payment of compensation to a contractor or service provider by way of quantum meruit despite defects in or even nullity of the contract. In his Dissenting Opinion, [43] he opined: [T]he Decision makes much reliance on COA Resolution No. [86-58] dated [November 15, 1986,] which states the policy on the Recovery by Government Contractors on the Basis of Quantum Meruit . This Resolution, which curiously limits quantum meruit recovery to a single ground - the absence of the certificate of availability of funds, has long been rendered obsolete by numerous decisions of the Supreme Court through the last three decades. It is archaic, a relic of the past, and totally out of tune with[,] not just jurisprudence[,] but reality. Relying on the Resolution as a basis for the denial of the money claim is not simply turning a blind eye to jurisprudence[,] but being inattentive and unjust. The justification usually given for the denial of money claims based on quantum meruit is that contractors continue to violate government procurement laws. But who actually violates the procurement law? Absent any proof of collusion, the burden of which falls on the Commission, it cannot be presumed that the contractor colluded with the government officials involved. It is the government official who violates the procurement law, by not holding any public bidding, or proceeding without appropriation or a written contract. Consequently, the proper party to penalize is the government official responsible. The denial of a quantum meruit money claim, in the absence of proof of collusion, will not have the effect of lessening procurement law violations for the simple reason that the wrong person is being penalized. The proper recourse is referral of the matter to the Office of the Ombudsman for investigation of the government officials involved. x x x x I vote to grant the Petition for Money Claim, subject to a quantum meruit determination of the actual services rendered and the reasonable value thereof. [44] Metro Laundry now comes directly to the Court on certiorari , insisting to be paid on the basis of quantum meruit for the services it had actually rendered for the City of Manila. [45] For its part, the COA Proper, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), points out Metro Laundry's failure to file a motion for reconsideration (MR) before the COA Proper before it sought remedy to the Court,