Verzosa v. Caraque (G.R. No. 157388; March 8, 2011)
CASE DIGEST: CANDELARIO L. VERZOSA, JR. v. GUILLERMO N. CARAQUE, et
al.
FACTS: In December 1992, the Cooperative
Development Authority (CDA) purchased from Tetra Corporation (Tetra) a total
of forty-six (46) units of computer equipment and peripherals in the total
amount ofP2,285,279.00.Tetra was chosen from among three qualified bidders
(Tetra, Microcircuits and Columbia).The bidding was conducted in accordance
with the approved guidelines for bidding and a memo issued by the Office of
the President.Petitioner who was then the Executive Director of the CDA
approved the purchase.The Resident Auditor sought the assistance of the Technical Services Office
(TSO), COA in the determination of the reasonableness of the prices of the
purchased computers. The TSO found that the purchased computers were
overpriced/excessive by a total ofP 881,819.00.It was noted that (1) no volume
discount was given by the supplier, (2) as early as 1992, there were so much
supply of computers in the market so that the prices of computers were
relatively low already; and (3) when CDA first offered to buy computers, of
the three qualified bidders, Microcircuits offered the lowest bid. The
Resident Auditor issued a Notice of Disallowance.
The Notice was appealed by the CDA to the COA Chairman, which upheld the
disallowance. It held, among others, that the CDA should not have awarded the
contract to Tetra but to the other competing bidders, whose bid is more
advantageous to the government.
ISSUE: Did the COA err in disallowing the purchase?
HELD: Preliminarily, petitioner availed of
the wrong remedy in filing a petition for review under Rule 45. Article IX-A,
Section 7 of the Constitution provides that decisions, orders or rulings of
the COA may be brought to the SC on certiorari by the aggrieved party.
Moreover, under Sec. 2, Rule 64, of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, a
judgment or final order or resolution of the COA may be brought by the
aggrieved party to the Supreme Court on certiorari under Rule 65.
Records showed that while the respondents found nothing wrong with the CDA criteria used to evaluate the bids, the final technical evaluation report was apparently manipulated to favor Tetra, which offered a Korean-made brand as against Microcircuits which offered a US-made brand said to be more durable, at a lower price.The conduct of public bidding in this case was not made objectively to purchase quality equipment at the least cost to the government.The price difference far exceeded the 10% allowable variance in the unit bought and the same items price.
Findings of quasi-judicial agencies, such as the COA, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters are generally accorded not only respect, but at times even finality, if such findings are supported by substantial evidence. It is only upon a clear showing that the COA acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction that this Court will set aside its decisions or final orders. We find no such arbitrariness or grave abuse on the part of the COA when it disallowed in audit the amount representing the overprice in the payment by CDA for the purchased computer units and peripherals, since its findings are well-supported by the evidence on record. DENIED.