EN BANC
RAMON T. LIM,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
130325
March 11, 2003
-versus-
COMMISSION ON AUDIT,
Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Challenged in the instant
petition for certiorari[1]
is the Decision dated March 1, 1996 of the Commission on Audit (COA)
affirming
the Resident Auditor's disallowance in audit of the payment of
P239,000.00
in favor of V.A. Rivera Enterprises representing the cost of one (1)
unit
electric generator purchased by the Government Service Insurance System
(GSIS), Zamboanga City through petitioner Ramon T. Lim; and the COA
Resolution
dated July 29, 1997 denying his motion for reconsideration.
The petition alleges
that on January 22, 1991, petitioner, then the Branch Manager of the
GSIS
at Zamboanga City (GSIS for brevity), requisitioned one (1)
generator.
It was intended to be used for the GSIS radio-telex machine during
power
interruptions in the locality.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After a canvass was
conducted, the GSIS sent a letter to V.A. Rivera Enterprises, which
offered
the lowest price, asking the latter to deliver the 20 KVA
Petter/Stamford
generator set. On January 8, 1992, V.A. Rivera Enterprises
delivered
the generator set to the GSIS which tested and used it.cralaw:red
Petitioner then sought
clearance from the head office in Manila for the purchase of the
generator
set. On March 3, 1992, Benjamin S. Dela Pena, GSIS Vice President
for Physical Resources Group, sent a memorandum to petitioner approving
the purchase of the unit.[2]
Realizing that the purchase
of the generator set involved a big amount of money, the GSIS scheduled
a bidding on May 28, 1992 and issued the Invitation to Pre-qualify and
Bid which reads in part:
"The Government Service
Insurance System is inviting suppliers to pre-qualify and to submit
their
bids for the supply, installation and wiring lay-out of:
ONE (1) UNIT 15 KVA
GENERATOR SET (Brand New)
Brand: PETER (Made in
England)
Single Phase, 60 cycle,
240 VAC
- To include the Panel
Board, Fuel Tank, Pilot Light, Circuit Breaker, Voltmeter, Cycle Meter
and Ammeter."[3]
Before the bidding,
or on May 18, 1992, the GSIS, upon the advice of its Branch Auditor,
Roberto
T. Marquez, returned to V.A. Rivera Enterprises the generator set it
had
delivered earlier. Considering that it was used from January 8 to
May 18, 1992, V.A. Rivera Enterprises demanded P152,000.00 as rental.cralaw:red
Subsequently, V.A. Rivera
Enterprises was declared the winner in the May 28, 1992 bidding.
Thus, it returned to the GSIS the 20 KVA generator set and waived the
P152,000.00
rental fee.cralaw:red
On June 23, 1992, Branch
Auditor Marquez sent a letter[4]
to petitioner informing him, among others, that the generator set is
not
brand-new; and that it was the same unit previously offered by V.A.
Rivera
Enterprises to the Zamboanga City Water District, now subject of a
legal
suit between them.cralaw:red
On September 11, 1992,
Branch Auditor Marquez rendered a Decision that the payment for the
generator
in the amount of P239,000.00 is being disallowed because (a) it is not
brand-new and (b) it is 20 KVA instead of 15 KVA as specified in the
Invitation
to Pre-qualify and Bid. Petitioner moved for a
reconsideration
but it was denied.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioner interposed
an appeal to respondent COA.cralaw:red
On March 1, 1996, respondent
COA promulgated its Decision affirming the Decision of Branch Auditor
Marquez.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied in the
Resolution dated July 29, 1997, thus:
"Records show that under
COA Decision No. 96-121 dated March 1, 1996, this Commission sustained
the action of the Auditor of the Government Service Insurance System
(GSIS),
Zamboanga City Branch, disallowing in audit the payment of P239,000.00
in favor of V.A. Rivera Enterprises representing the cost of one unit
electric
generator which the GSIS in Zamboanga City purchased. Said
disallowance
was predicated on the ground that the machine, as appraised by the
Technical
Audit Specialist of COA Regional Office No. IX, is not brand new and it
does not conform to the specifications called for in the Invitation to
Bid (ITB) which specified an imported 15KVA generator and that the
dealer
was not able to present Tax and Duty Receipt which would prove that the
equipment is a duly imported item."[5]
In the same Resolution,
respondent COA also held that the GSIS is not liable to V.A. Rivera
Enterprises
for payment of rentals.cralaw:red
Hence, this petition.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioner alleges in
the instant petition that respondent COA acted with grave abuse of
discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction in disallowing the payment of the
generator
set in favor of V.A. Rivera Enterprises and in failing to appreciate
and
apply the principle of quantum meruit.cralaw:red
Petitioner contends
that the unit is brand-new although it was locally-assembled and that
the
requirement for the purchase of the unit was complied with because the
20 KVA generator set delivered by V.A. Rivera Enterprises is more
powerful
than the 15 KVA specified in the invitation to bid.cralaw:red
Petitioner's arguments
lack merit.cralaw:red
As found by respondent
COA, what was delivered to the GSIS was a locally-assembled 20 KVA
generator
set which was previously offered by V.A. Rivera Enterprises to the
Zamboanga
City Water District.[6]
These findings of fact
by respondent COA sustaining the conclusion to disallow the payment of
P239,000.00 in favor of V.A. Rivera Enterprises are entitled to
respect.
Well-settled is the rule that factual findings of administrative
agencies
are generally respected and even accorded finality because of the
special
knowledge and expertise gained by these agencies from handling matters
falling under their specialized jurisdiction.[7]
In Tuazon vs. Godoy,[8]
this Court held:
"Factual findings of
administrative agencies are generally held to be binding and final so
long
as they are supported by substantial evidence in the record of the case
(Philtranco Service Enterprise, Inc. vs. NLRC, 288 SCRA 585
[1998]).
It is not the function of the Supreme Court to analyze or weigh all
over
again the evidence and credibility of witnesses presented before the
lower
court, tribunal or office. The Supreme Court is not a trier of
facts.
Its jurisdiction is limited to reviewing and revising errors of law
imputed
to the lower court, its findings of fact being conclusive and not
reviewable
by this Court (Manzano vs. Court of Appeals, 278 SCRA 688 [1997])."
The 20 KVA generator
set, not being in conformity with the specifications provided in the
Invitation
to Pre-Qualify and Bid, respondent COA's Decision disallowing its
payment
is in order.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As to petitioner's contention
that the GSIS has to pay rentals for its use of the generator set based
on the principle of quantum meruit, the same is bereft of merit.cralaw:red
In a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, such as
the one at bar, the only issue to be resolved is whether the assailed
act
of the respondent "tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial
functions" was done without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction or
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.
The payment of rentals for the use of the generator set based on
quantum
meruit is certainly not an issue here.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the instant
petition is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision dated March 1,
1996
and Resolution dated July 29, 1997 of respondent COA are AFFIRMED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
Bellosillo,
Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Carpio, Austria-Martinez,
Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Ynares-Santiago, J.,
on leave.cralaw:red
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Pursuant to Section 2, Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure.
[2]
Annex "H-2," Petition, Rollo at 50.
[3]
Annex "I," id. at 51.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Rollo at 65.
[5]
Id. at 33.
[6]
Id. at 31.
[7]
Mapa vs. Arroyo, 175 SCRA 76, 81 (1989).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
G.R. No. 146927, December 10, 2002, citing Pabu-aya vs. Court of
Appeals,
356 SCRA 651, 657 (2001). |