Tomas N.
Joson III vs. Commission on Audit G.R. No. 223762 November 7, 2017 Case
Digest
FACTS:
In 2007, a Special Audit Team (SAT) of the COA conducted a special audit of selected
transactions of the Provincial Government of Nueva Ecija for calendar years 2004-2007. The
SAT found an irregular award made by the province for the construction of the Nueva Ecija
Friendship Hotel to A.V.T. Construction. Thereafter, the SAT issued Notice of Disallowance ND
No. L-09-05-005(2004-2007) disallowing the payments made to A.V.T. Construction in the total
amount of Php155,036,681.77 on the grounds that they are not complying with the eligibility
check process, contrary to the provisions of Section 21.2 and 23 of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9184.
The SAT found the members of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC), the BAC Technical
Working Group (TWG), the provincial accountant, the provincial engineer and herein Petitioner
in his capacity as provincial governor of Nueva Ecija and as head of the procuring entity,
solidarily liable for the disallowed amount. Petitioner was held solidarily liable for entering into
the contract with A.V.T. Construction and for approving the payment vouchers to the latter.
Petitioner then filed a petition for exclusion from liability arguing that he should not be held
liable for the disallowed amount since the determination of whether a prospective bidder is
eligible or not is the exclusive responsibility of the BAC and if there is indeed a liability, the
members of the BAC should be held liable since they are the persons directly responsible for the
transaction.
The COA found Petitioner liable for the disallowed amount since he failed to exercise due
diligence in the performance of his duty.
ISSUES:
WON the COA gravely abused its discretion in holding petitioner personally liable for the
disallowed amount of Php 155,036,681.77.
HELD:
YES THEY DID.
Petitioner rely on the Arias Doctrine to be absolved of his liability. He alleged that the COA
gravely abused its discretion in holding him personally liable for the disallowed amount. He
claimed that the BAC has the responsibility to check and determine the eligibility of the
prospective bidders. Thus, petitioner, as head of the procuring entity and the local chief
executive, has the right to reasonably rely on the faithful performance by the BAC of its duties.
Petitioner further claimed that there was no reason for him to be particularly cautious and probe
every step in the bidding process. As head of the procuring entity, he had to rely to a reasonable
extent on the good faith of his subordinates in the regular performance of their duties. Finally,
petitioner argued that his alleged prior knowledge of the incompleteness of documents and the
ineligibility of A.V.T. Construction was merely presumed by the BAC through his signature on
the contracts.
The Supreme Court Agrees.
The fact that petitioner is the head of the procuring entity and the governor of Nueva Ecija does
not automatically make him the party ultimately liable for the disallowed amount. He cannot be
held liable simply because he was the final approving authority of the transaction in question and
that the employees/officers who processed the same were under his supervision.
As this Court held in the case of Ramon Albert v. Celso D. Gangan, et. al.:
We have consistently held that every person who signs or initials documents in the course of
transit through standard operating procedures does not automatically become a conspirator in a
crime which transpired at a stage where he had no participation. His knowledge of the conspiracy
and his active and knowing participation therein must be proved by positive evidence. The fact
that such officer signs or initials a voucher as it is going the rounds does not necessarily follow
that the said person becomes part of a conspiracy in an illegal scheme. The guilt beyond
reasonable doubt of each supposed conspirator must be established. (Emphasis Ours)
Petitioner, being the head of the procuring entity in addition to his duties as the governor of
Nueva Ecija, is responsible for the whole province. With the amount of paperwork that normally
passes through in his office and the numerous documents he has to sign, it would be
counterproductive to require petitioner to specifically and meticulously examine each and every
document that passes his office. Thus, petitioner has the right to rely to a reasonable extent on
the good faith of his subordinates.
Mere signature of the petitioner in the award of the contract and the contract itself without
anything more cannot be considered as a presumption of liability.1avvphi1 It should be recalled
that mere signature does not result to a liability of the official involved without any showing of
irregularity on the document's face such that a detailed examination would be
warranted. Liability depends upon the wrong committed and not solely by reason of being the
head of a government agency.
Assuming that petitioner Joson III committed a mistake in not ensuring that the eligibility
documents were attached to the contract, it is settled that mistakes committed by a public officer
are not actionable absent any clear showing that they were motivated by malice or gross
negligence amounting to bad faith.
In this case, there is no showing that petitioner Joson III was motivated by malice or gross
negligence amounting to bad faith in failing to ensure that the eligibility documents of A.V.T.
Construction were not attached to the contract. In fact, there was even no evidence that petitioner
was aware that A.V.T. Construction was ineligible due to the absence of the pre-qualification or
eligibility checklist using the "pass/fail" criteria, the NFCC and the Technical eligibility
documents. Good faith is always presumed. Here, the COA failed to overcome the presumption
of good faith.
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Certiorari is GRANTED.
The Decision dated January 29, 2015 and Resolution dated January 19, 2016 rendered by the
Commission on Audit (COA) in Decision No. 2015-019 are hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE insofar as it held petitioner Tomas N. Joson III solidarily liable for the amount of the
disallowance.
