COA disallowance on R118-M medical supplies upheld

The Supreme Court has upheld two rulings of the Commission on Audit (COA) disallowing the purchase of R118 million worth of medicines and medical and dental supplies by the Laguna provincial government in 2004 and 2005.

In a decision written by Associate Justice Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen, the court ruled that it “finds no basis to conclude that the amount of R118,039,493.46 constitutes the reasonable value” for the medical supplies.

The decision denied the petition filed by then Laguna governor Teresita S. Lazaro, provincial administrator and Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) chair Dennis S. Lazaro, provincial budget officer and BAC vice chair Marieta V. Jara, provincial attorney Antonio P. Relova, provincial engineer Gilberto R. Mondez, general services officerin-charge Pablo V. Del Mundo Jr., and provincial health officer II Alsaneo F. Lagos.

The court, however, granted the separate petition filed by Evelyn T. Villanueva, then officer-in-charge of the office of the provincial accountant.

A summary of the decision released by the Supreme Court stated that Villanueva was not liable for the disallowed transactions that were completed prior to her designation as officer-in-charge of the office of the provincial accountant.

The court ordered the cases remanded to COA to determine which of the disallowed transactions that transpired prior to July 5, 2005 for which Villanueva was not liable.

COA’s regional office No. IV had reported there was no public bidding conducted, the purchase requests had made reference to brand names; and there had been splitting of purchase requests and purchase orders.

On Dec. 27, 2006, the COA Regional Cluster Director issued a Notice of Disallowance, which held liable for the 2004 and 2005 procurement Governor Lazaro, Villanueva, Dennis Lazaro, Lagos, Jara, Relova, Mondez, and Del Mundo.

Lazaro’s group and Villanueva filed separate petitions for review before the Supreme Court.

The court rejected the petitions, saying the petitioners failed to show that COA committed grave abuse of discretion in disallowing the expenditures.