G.R. NO. 151987 - DIRECTOR FREDRIC VILLANUEVA, ATTY. JOSEPH HUMIDING, ENGR. FRANCIS BASALI, AND TESSIE BRINGAS, VS. THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY GUILLERMO N. CARAGUE, RAUL C. FLORES AND EMMANUEL DALMAN, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS, RESPECTIVELY.

Ruling

Accordingly, the instant appeal for reconsideration of the findings under SAO Report No. 95-31, specifically Findings No. 1, 7 and 8, except for the procurement of 24 units of overhead projectors covered by Notice of Disallowance No. 014-03-97 for P27,960.00, cannot be given due course. It is directed that a copy of this decision be furnished the Office of the Ombudsman for Luzon for filing of appropriate criminal action against those accountable officers responsible for the irregularities committed relative thereto. [21] On 17 October 2000, petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied, for lack of merit by respondent COA in the second assailed Resolution dated 6 December 2001. [22] Hence, the instant petition where it is averred that respondent COA gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction . . . IN FINDING THAT PETITIONERS SHOULD BE HELD LIABLE AND THUS SHOULD BE CHARGED BEFORE THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN FOR GRAFT AND CORRUPTION PRACTICES;. . . IN NOT EVALUATING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS PRESENTED BY THE EVIDENCE OF THE PETITIONERS;. . . IN NOT APPLYING THE CORRECT LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE IN THE CASE SUBMITTED BEFORE IT FOR RESOLUTION; [and]. . . IN FAVORING AND EXONERATING ITS OWN AUDITOR AND INSTEAD FINDING FAULT IN THE PETITIONERS. At the pith of the controversy is the scope of the Commission on Audits authority and the limits of its participation in public biddings of government agencies. The assailed COA Decision, among other things, stated that the various plastic bags were purchased without the benefit of public bidding and were overpriced by as much as P344,098.50. [23] And, in its Resolution denying petitioners motion for reconsideration, respondent COA underscored the Special Audit Teams observation that: The alleged failure of the Resident Auditor in the performance of her duties can not also be given credence. COA Circular No. 78-87 dated September 6, 1978 states the extent of auditorial involvement with regard to the opening of bids, to wit: maintenance of documentary integrity; physical security of the records of the bidding; identification and security of alteration of bids. Parenthetically, the technical and financial evaluation of the bids rests with the members of the bidding committee who exercise discretionary functions and for that matter it is presumed that so much is reposed in their integrity, ability, acumen and judgment. The determination, therefore, of the overpricing of the bidded items is the responsibility of the bidding committee and not of the representative of this Commission. [24] Petitioners, in refutation, argue in the main that they cannot be charged for causing undue injury to the government (Section 3[e] of Rep. Act No. 3019) considering that if there had been any suspicion of irregularity or any deliberate act on their part to prejudice the government, the resident auditor should have caused the immediate stoppage or suspension of the deliberation