G.R. No. 255074 - NILDA LAGUNA SALAZAR, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT (COA), AND MA. MILEGUAS M. LEYNO, IN HER CAPACITY AS REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF COMMISSION ON AUDIT REGION III.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , the foregoing premises considered, [the] instant appeals are hereby DENIED . Accordingly Notice of Disallowance (ND) ND No. 12-001-101(09)(10), dated September 18, 2012, disallowing [PHP] 23,048,230.15 is hereby AFFIRMED . [23] Perplexed, Salazar, together with the other persons identified in the Notice of Disallowance, filed a Petition for Review [24] before the COA Proper. The case was docketed as COA CP Case No. 2014-316. The COA's Ruling On January 31, 2018, the COA rendered Decision No. 2018-212, denying the Petition for lack of merit. It ruled, among others, that the audit team was deprived from making a complete examination and evaluation of the propriety and cost reasonableness of the subject transaction due to incomplete documentation. As such, a transaction of such nature is irregular. [25] Veritably, the Bids and Awards Committee failed to scrutinize or verify the approved budget for the contract and how the costing was derived. Had they performed their task, they would have found the deficiencies in the documents submitted. [26] The decision likewise laid emphasis on Section 12 of Republic Act No. 9184, which states that Bids and Awards Committee members have the control of the entire bidding process up to the recommendation of the award, including the duty to ensure that the procuring entity abides by the rules set forth in the law and its implementing rules and regulations. Accordingly, their failure to perform their functions makes them liable for the disallowance. [27] The COA adjudicated as follows: WHEREFORE , premises considered, the Petition for Review is DENIED . Accordingly, Commission on Audit Regional Office No. III Decision No. 2014-36 dated May 16, 2014 which affirmed Notice of Disallowance No. 12-001-101(09)(10) dated September 18, 2012 relative to the construction of Mayantoc Memorial Park in the aggregate amount of [PHP] 23,048,230.15, is hereby AFFIRMED . [28] Unruffled, Salazar sought reconsideration, positing that the grounds relied upon in disallowing the total cost of the project are not attributable to the Bids and Awards Committee of which she was a member. First , the determination of the approved budget for the contract is the responsibility of the Sangguniang Bayan and the head of the local government unit. Second , the responsibility of submitting the project for pre-audit falls upon the head of the local government unit. Lastly , the responsibility of posting the Invitation to Bid in the Philippine Government Electronic Procurement System website lies with the Bids and Awards Secretariat. [29] Invoking the principle of unjust enrichment, and assuming that there was a ground to disallow the payments for the Project, the disallowance of the total amount was not proper considering that the Project is currently being used by the public. [30] In denying the motion, the COA explicated that while the responsibility of Bids and Awards Committee ceases after the issuance of the Notice of Award, its memb