l\epublic of tbe Jlbilippines

~upreme <tourt
iff[anila
EN BANC

TERESITA S. LAZARO, DENNIS G.R. No. 213323;

S. LAZARO, MARIETA V. JARA,
ANTONIO P. RELOVA,
GILBERTO R. MONDEZ, PABLO
V. DEL MUNDO, JR., AND
ALSANEO F. LAGOS,
Petitioners,

-versus- and

COMMISSION ON AUDIT,
REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF COA
REGIONAL OFFICE NO. IV-A,
AND COA AUDIT TEAM
LEADER, PROVINCE OF
LAGUNA,
Respondents;
x-------------------------------------------x x---------------------------------------x
EVELYN T. VILLANUEVA, G.R. No. 213324
Provincial Accountant of the
Present:
Province of Laguna,
Petitioner, BERSAMIN, J., Chief Justice,
CARPIO,
PERALTA,
DEL CASTILLO,
PERLAS-BERNABE,
LEONEN,
JARDELEZA,
-versus- CAGUIOA,
REYES, A., JR.,
GESMUNDO,
REYES, J., JR.,
HERNANDO, and
CARANDANG, JJ.

COMMISSION ON AUDIT,
Respondent.
Promulgated:
January 22, 2019
!
 Decision 2 G.R. Nos. 213323 and 213324

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION

LEONEN, J.:

These are Petitions for Certiorari 1 under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court,
assailing the August 17, 2011 Decision2 and May 6, 2014 Resolution 3 of the
Commission on Audit, which reversed the March 19, 2010 Decision4 of the
Commission on Audit Regional Office No. IV (Regional Office). In its
Decision, the Regional Office reversed the Decision of the then Regional
Cluster Director of the Commission on Audit, Regional Legal and
Adjudication Office, which, in tum, disallowed the Provincial Government of
Laguna's purchase of medicines, medical and dental supplies, and equipment
(medical items) in the total amount of Pl 18,039,493.46. 5

As reported in a December 3, 2004 article of the Philippine Daily

Inquirer, the Regional Director of the Regional Office created an audit team
to conduct a preliminary fact-finding audit and investigation of irregularities
in the purchase of medical items. 6

The audit team issued two (2) Audit Observation Memoranda,7 which
revealed that in the 2004 and 2005 procurement of medical items: (1) no
public bidding had been conducted; (2) purchase requests had made reference
to brand names; and (3) there had been splitting of purchase requests and
purchase orders. 8

On December 27, 2006, the Regional Cluster Director issued a Notice

of Disallowance, 9 which held liable for the 2004 and 2005 procurement of
medical items worth Pl 18,039,493.46 the following individuals: (1) Governor
Teresita S. Lazaro (Governor Lazaro); (2) Officer-in-Charge Provincial
Accountant Evelyn T. Villanueva (Villanueva); (3) Provincial Administrator
and Bids and Awards Committee Chairman Dennis S. Lazaro (Dennis

Rollo (G.R. No. 213323), pp. 3-27 and rollo (G.R. No. 213324), pp. 3-22.
Rollo (G.R. No. 213324), pp. 23-32. The Decision was penned by Commissioner Ma. Gracia M. Pulido
Tan and concurred in by Commissioners Juanito G. Espino, Jr. and Heidi L. Mendoza of the Commission
on Audit, Quezon City.
J
Id. at 33. The Notice of Resolution was signed by Commission Secretary and Director IV Nilda B.
Plaras of the Commission on Audit, Quezon City.
4
Id. at 77-82. The Decision was penned by Regional Director Leonardo L. Jamoralin of the Regional
Office No. IV, Commission on Audit, Quezon City.
Id. at 78.
6
Id. at 23.
Id. at 35-42.
Id. at 23-24.
9
Id. at 43-44.
Decision 3 G.R. Nos. 213323 and 213324

Lazaro); (4) Provincial Health Officer II Alsaneo F. Lagos (Lagos); ( 5)

Provincial Budget Officer and Bids and Awards Committee Vice Chairman
Marieta V. Jara (Jara); (6) Provincial Attorney Antonio P. Relova (Relova);
(7) Provincial Engineer Gilberto R. Mondez (Mondez); and (8) General
Services Office Officer-in-Charge Pablo V. Del Mundo, Jr. (Del Mundo).
Relova, Mondez, and Del Mundo are Bids and Awards Committee
members. 10

The Notice of Disallowance indicated that: ( 1) the medical items were

purchased without public bidding; and (2) reference to brand names were
made in the procurement documents to justify the resort to exclusive
distributorship, contrary to Section 18 of Republic Act No. 9184. 11

On April 30, 2007, Governor Lazaro filed a Motion for Reconsideration

of the Notice of Disallowance. However, it was denied in the Regional
Cluster Director's March 25, 2008 Decision. 12

On May 27, 2008, Governor Lazaro and the rest of the persons held
liable filed an Appeal Memorandum to the Notice of Disallowance. 13

In his March 19, 2010 Decision, the Regional Office granted their
appeal. It held:

While this is the letter of the law, it bears emphasizing that no less
than the Supreme Court admits of exceptions to the provisions of law above
cited. In affirming the respect accorded to the exercise by administrative
agencies of discretion whenever reference to brand names and the
consequential resort to negotiated purchase are made, the Court, in the
precedent-setting pronouncement in National Center for Mental Health
(NCMH) vs. COA, G.R. No. 114864, December 6, 1996, 265 SCRA 390,
declared in categorical manner that the judgment of the government agency
concerned regarding the suitability of the product, given the nature of its
services, should be accorded respect even ifthere could have been substitute
items.

Equally decisive and of similar tenor is the implication of the

Court's declaration in Baylon vs. Ombudsman and Sandiganbayan, G.R.
No. 142738, December 14, 2001, wherein the reference to brand names,
while supposedly prohibited under the above cited Section 18 of RA No.
9184, was allowed. 14

In its August 17, 2011 Decision, the Commission on Audit, upon

automatic review, disapproved the Regional Office March 19, 2010 Decision.
10
11

12
Id.
Id.
Id.
at 24-25.
at 24.
at 25-26.
I
13
Id. at 60-76.
14
Id. at 80-81.
 Decision 4 G.R. Nos. 213323 and 213324

In affirming the Notice of Disallowance, it held that the disallowance was

proper, and that petitioners should be held liable for Pl 18,039,493.46. 15

On July 28, 2014, petitioners Governor Lazaro, Dennis Lazaro, Jara,

Rel ova, Mondez, Del Mundo, and Lagos (petitioners Governor Lazaro, et al.)
filed a Petition for Certiorari 16 before this Court, docketed as G.R. No.
213323. Petitioner Villanueva filed another Petition for Certiorari, which was
docketed as G.R. No. 213324. 17

In its August 5, 2014 Resolution, this Court consolidated the two (2)
Petitions. 18

On November 19, 2014, respondents Commission on Audit, the

Regional Director of the Regional Office No. IV-A, and the Audit Team
Leader of the Commission on Audit, Province of Laguna filed their
Consolidated Comment. 19 Petitioners filed their Reply on February 9, 2015. 20
Petitioners Villanueva and Governor Lazaro, et al. filed their Memoranda on
June 11, 2015 21 and June 26, 2015, 22 respectively. The Office of the Solicitor
General adopted its Consolidated Comment as its Memorandum. 23

In its July 12, 2016 Resolution, this Court denied petitioners'

Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary
Injunction dated April 8, 2016. 24

Petitioner Villanueva points out that she did not participate in the
transactions prior to July 5, 2005, and should not be held liable for them. 25

Petitioners Governor Lazaro, et al. argue that they had factual basis for
resorting to direct contracting on the basis of brand names because: (1) there
are exceptions to the prohibition against referring to brand names under
Republic Act No. 9184; 26 (2) the Therapeutics Committees of the Province of
Laguna's district hospitals issued Certifications/Justifications recommending
the brand names selected; 27 and (3) the Certificates of Exclusive
Distributorship and Certificates of Product Registration proved that the

15

16
Id. at 31.
Rollo (G.R. No. 213323), pp. 3-27.
f
17
Rollo (G.R. No. 213324), pp. 3-22.
18
ld.atl09.
19
Id. at 114-137.
20
Id. at 140.
21
Id. at 169.
22
Id. at 198.
23
Id. at 194.
24
Id. at 353.
25
Id. at 176-179.
26
Rollo (G.R. No. 213323), p. 13.
27
Id. at 10-11.
 Decision 5 G.R. Nos. 213323 and 213324

suppliers selected "were the exclusive distributors" 28 of the procured medical

items. 29

Petitioners Governor Lazaro, et al. further insist that even ifthe contract
was defective, a claim under the defective contract can still be satisfied under
the principle of quantum meruit. They point out that in Royal Trust
Construction v. Commission on Audit3° and EPG Construction Co. v. Hon.
Vigilar, 31 this Court allowed the payment to the contractor despite perceived
infirmities in the contract. The infirmities did not render the contract illegal. 32

Respondents state that Section 18 of Republic Act No. 9184 expressly

prohibits reference to brand names, without any exception or condition. 33 The
Certifications/Justifications issued by the Therapeutics Committees were
merely recommendatory, whereas the language of Republic Act No. 9184 is
mandatory. 34 Further, the Therapeutics Committees did not refer to any
clinical study to support their claims in the Certifications/Justifications. 35
They did not prove that there were no substitutes for the procured items that
could have been obtained at terms more advantageous to the government. 36

Respondents argue that the principle of quantum meruit does not apply
here because petitioners patently violated the legal provisions on competitive
public bidding. They insist that petitioner Villanueva is liable, for it is her
duty, as Provincial Accountant, to confirm the completeness and propriety of
the procurement documents. They further claim that she certified the
documents supporting the disbursement vouchers even when they were not
proper. 37

The issues for this Court's resolution are:

First, whether or not the necessary conditions for direct contracting

were met in the disallowed transactions;

Second, whether or not the principle of quantum meruit applies here;

and

28
29
30
Id. at 10.
Id.
J
G.R. No. 84202, November 22, 1988. Unsigned Resolution.
31
407 Phil. 53 (2001) [Per J. Buena, Second Division].
32
Rollo (G.R. No. 213323), pp. 14-15.
33
Rollo (G.R. No. 213324), pp. 126-127. Respondents cite the Government Procurement Policy
Board's Non-Policy Opinion No. NPM 020-2004.
34
Id. at 128-129.
35
Id. at 129.
36 Id.
37
Id. at 132-133.
Decision 6 G.R. Nos. 213323 and 213324

Finally, whether or not petitioner Villanueva can be held liable for

disallowed transactions in which she has not been shown to have participated.

This Court denies the Petition in G.R. No. 213323 and partially grants
the Petition in G.R. No. 213324.

Petitioners failed to show that the Commission on Audit committed

grave abuse of discretion in disallowing the expenditures covered by the
Notice of Disallowance.

The Commission on Audit based its disallowance on: ( 1) the purchases

being accomplished without public bidding, in violation of Section 10 of
Republic Act No. 9184; and (2) reference to brand names being made to
invoke an exception to the competitive bidding requirement, in violation of
Section 18 of Republic Act No. 9184. 38

Petitioners Governor Lazaro, et al. cite National Center for Mental

Health Management v. Commission on Audit3 9 to support their claims. They
point out that this Court accorded respect to administrative agencies' exercise
of discretion whenever reference to brand names and the consequential resort
to negotiated purchases were made. 40 In that case, this Court laid exceptions
to the prohibition against references to brand names under Republic Act No.
9184. Further, the Certifications/Justifications of the Therapeutics
Committees, which are responsible for determining the drugs to be procured
by government hospitals, explained the choice of the brand names. 41

Petitioners Governor Lazaro, et al. point out that in National Center for
Mental Health Management, this Court found that while there could have
been substitute items, the procuring entity's judgment on the suitability of the
brand of the items procured should be accorded respect. 42

What petitioners Governor Lazaro, et al. fail to mention is that National

Center for Mental Health Management was decided in 1996, before Republic
Act No. 9184 was enacted in 2003. Exceptions to the prohibition against
!
reference to brand names in Republic Act No. 9184 could not have been laid
out years before the statute's enactment.

38
Id. at 35--42.
39
333 Phil. 222 (1996) [Per J. Vitug, En Banc].
40
Rollo (G.R. No. 213324), p. 207.
41 Id.
42
Id. at 207-208.
 Decision 7 G.R. Nos. 213323 and 213324

The law is patently clear, with no exceptions: "[r]eference to brand

names shall not be allowed." 43 Without basis to claim that it was proper to
refer to brand names in their procurement, the claim that this case is an
exception to the requirement of competitive bidding has no leg to stand on.
Consequently, the transactions were properly disallowed.

II

When asserting their limited or absence of liability based on the

principles of quantum meruit and good faith, petitioners, in good diligence,
must clearly allege and support the factual basis for their claims. It is not this
Court's burden to construe petitioners' incomplete submissions and vague
narrations to determine if their assertions have merit.

On the basis of quantum meruit, petitioners claim that even if the

transactions were properly disallowed, they should not be required to
reimburse the disallowed amounts. This is because all the medical items
procured were delivered in good condition and distributed to the provincial
and health centers. They were used by the intended beneficiaries of the health
program. Petitioners cite Royal Trust Construction, 44 EPG Construction
Co., 45 Dr. Eslao v. The Commission on Audit, 46 and Melchor v. Commission
on Audit47 to support their position.

Royal Trust Construction, EPG Construction Co., and Eslao are not
squarely applicable here. All three (3) cases involved the question of whether
payment should be made to the contractor who had already provided the
services covered by a disallowed transaction. They did not tackle the liability
of public officials responsible for irregular transactions.

Indeed, the principle of quantum meruit-that a party is allowed to

recover as much as he or she reasonably deserves48-is usually invoked with
regard to paying a contractor for works rendered. Here, however, the
contractors have already been paid, and the question to be resolved is whether
the public officers responsible for the irregularity must reimburse the
government for it.

Melchor is more relevant than the rest here, as it pertained to the

liability of a public officer for disallowed transactions. Nonetheless, it is still
not entirely on all fours with this case. Melchor involved two (2) amounts

43
Rep. Act No. 9184 (2003), sec. 18.
I
44
G.R. No. 84202, November 22, 1988. Unsigned Resolution.
45
407 Phil. 53 (2001) [Per J. Buena, Second Division].
46
273 Phil. 97 (1991) [Per J. Gancayco, En Banc].
47
277 Phil. 801 (1991) [Per J. Gutierrez, Jr., En Banc].
48
Daraga Press, Inc. v. Commission on Audit, 760 Phil. 391, 407 (2015) [Per J. Del Castillo, En Banc].
Decision 8 G.R. Nos. 213323 and 213324

that were disallowed: (1) P344,340.88, when the Commission on Audit found
that the legal requirements for the contract had not been met; and (2) an
additional Pl 72,003.26, supposedly for extra work on the same project, when
the Commission on Audit found that there had been no supplemental
agreement executed for this additional amount.

In Melchor, this Court reversed the disallowance for the amount of

P344,340.88, because the requirements for the contract on the project had
substantially been complied with as far as that amount was concerned.
However, this Court determined it proper to declare the contract for extra
works as void since there was no approval by the proper authority on the
additional amount. Thus, disallowing the amount of Pl 72,003.26 had basis.
Despite the disallowance, this Court held that the petitioner's liability for the
entire amount of Pl 72,003.26 should not be considered automatic. This Court
recognized that while the principle of quantum meruit is generally
contemplated for unpaid contractors, it also applied to the public officer in
that case. It directed the Commission on Audit to compute the value of the
extra works under quantum meruit, and hold the public officer liable for the
excess or improper payment for the extra works, if any.

Although this Court in Melchor recognized the possibility of applying

the principle of quantum meruit when considering a public officer's liability,
it must be stressed that it was not used to completely absolve this liability.
Rather, the principle was used to determine whether the contractor had been
paid beyond the amount deserved based on quantum meruit, such that the
public officer there was liable only for the amount that was paid beyond the
reasonable amount deserved by the contractor. Even more significant, before
it applied the principle of quantum meruit, this Court had determined that the
requirements for the validity of the main contract of P344,340.88 had already
been met. This is not the case here.

Here, no part of the disallowed transaction could be deemed valid.

Petitioners plainly violated the law requiring procurement to undergo
competitive bidding. In doing so, they also violated the law prohibiting
reference to brand names.

Moreover, even if the principle of quantum meruit could be applied

here, petitioners fail to establish the factual basis for its application. In
Melchor, to determine a public officer's liability based on quantum meruit,
the amount of reasonable value of the procured items or services must first be
established, so that the public officer is liable for only the excess paid beyond
the reasonable value.

Here, petitioners were held liable for the disallowed purchase of

medical items amounting to Pl 18,039,493.46. They do not, however, provide
I
Decision 9 G.R. Nos. 213323 and 213324

any basis to determine what were purchased. Thus, there is no basis to

determine the reasonable value for the items purchased.

This Court cannot accept the position that the entire Pl18,039,493.46
was the reasonable value for the items purchased.

Petitioners enumerated neither the items purchased without public

bidding nor the suppliers for these items. Just to form an idea of what were
purchased and their values, this Court had to rely on the available documents
submitted.

Petitioners attached some Purchase Requests to the Petition. 49 The

items and costs covered by these are summarized as follows:

Quantity Unit of Item Description Estimated Estimated

Issue Unit Cost Cost
7 bxs CEA OGA X-Ray film green Pl8,500.00 P185,000.00
sensitive l lxl4 (IOO's)
10 bxs CEA OGA X-Ray film green 24,000.00 240,000.00
sensitive 14x17 (lOO's)
10 bxs Fixer (manual) 3,500.00 35,000.00
10 bxs Developer (manual) 3,500.00 35,000.00
5 bxs Basic Trash Bag XL (green, 13,000.00 65,000.00
black, yellow)
5 bxs Basic Trash Bag XXL (green, 21,000.00 I 05,000.00 50
black, yellow)
10 bxs. lsosorbide 5mg. oral/sub tab. x 1,350.00 13,500.00
lOO's (NITROSORBON)
20 bxs. Cinnarizine tab. 25mg. x IOO's 958.00 19,160.00
144 btls. Pheylpropanolamine syrup 98.00 14,112.00
60ml.
10 bxs. Omeprazole 20mg. cap. x 7,000.00 70,000.00
lOO's
300 bxs. ATS 1,500 iu 128.00 38,400.00
300 bxs. ATS 3,000 iu 268.00 80,400.00
300 bxs. ATS 5,000 iu 398.00 119,400.00 51
8 bxs Euromed Dextran 70[%] in 14,500.00 116,000.00
D5W 500ml x 15's (glass)
3 bxs Euro med Aminosyn 3.5% 11,500.00 34,500.00
500ml x 15's (glass)
5 bxs Euromed D5W 250ml x 20's 3,100.00 15,500.00
(glass)
30 bxs Euromed D5NMK 11 x S's 2,000.00 60,000.00
150 bxs Euro med Plain NSS for 850.00 127,500.00
Irrigation 11 x 12's
100 bxs Euromed Euro-ion 500ml x 1,600.00 160,000.00
24's

f
49
Rollo (G.R. No. 213323), p. 7. The Purchase Requests were attached as Annexes G, G-1 to G-15 of the
Petition.
50
Id. at 136, Annex G.
51
Id. at 137, Annex G-1.
Decision 10 G.R. Nos. 213323 and 213324

IO bxs Euro med 20% Mannitol 6,000.00 60,000.00 52

Injection 24 's
100 bxs. Euro-ION 500ml x24's Euro- 1,600.00 160,000.00
Med
250 bxs. D5LR 1Lxl2's Euro-Med 830.00 207,500.00

150 bxs. PNSS IL x12's Euro-Med 830.00 124,500.00

100 bxs. PLR I Lx12's Euro-Med 830.00 83,000.00

5 bxs. PLR 500ml x24's Euro-Med 1,600.00 8,000.00

(DrW) 500cc
5 bxs. CM! Infusion set, adult, 300's 25,000.00 125,000.00

5 bxs. Soluset, adult, pedia, 50's 30,000.00 150,000.00 53

15 bxs Glibenclamide 5mg tab x I OO's 675.00 10,125.00

12 bxs Erythromycin tab 500mg x 2, 160.00 25,920.00

lOO's
10 bxs Piracetam tab 400mg x 1OO's 1,290.00 12,900.00 54

20 bxs Erythromycin tab 500mg x 2,800.00 56,000.00

IOO's (ETRIOGAPE)
144 btls. Erythromycin susp. 198.00 28,512.00
200mg/5ml (Etriogape)
144 btls. Vit B Complex, Iron, Lysine 250.00 36,000.00
syrup (APPETASON) 120ml
144 btls. Multivitamins syrup 120ml 156.00 22,464.00
(MULTI-GROW)
144 btls. Ascorbic Acid syrup 103.00 14,832.00
100mg/5ml (VITACOR-C)
120ml
20 bxs Diclofenac tab 50mg x lOO's 900.00 18,000.00
(VO REN)
144 btls. Aluminum MgOH susp 78.00 11,232.00
200mg/1 OOml (MELMAG)
144 btls. Carbocisteine 50mg/ml drops 59.75 8,604.00
(CEASCOL)
20 bxs. Salbutamol tab 2mg x lOO's 480.00 9,600.00
(ASMAR)
20 bxs. Salbutamol neb 30's 1,080.00 21,600.00
(HIVENT)
20 bxs. Dicycloverine tab IOmg x 258.00 5,160.00
IOO's (SPASMO-
DORCASAL)
20 bxs. Furosemide tab 40mg x IOO's 485.00 9,700.00
(MARSEMIDE)
20 bxs. Captopril tab 5mg 2,228.00 44,560.00
(TENSORIL)
200 vis. Cefuroxime 250mg vi 268.00 53,600.00
(CEPHIN)
30 bxs. Glibenclamide 5mg tab 1OO's 758.00 22, 740.00 55
(DEBTAN)
120 vis. Citiceline 500 mg.vis. 520.00 62,400.00
120 vis. Citiceline 1 gm vis. 816.00 97,920.00 56
10 bxs. Nitroglycerin patch x 30's 1,908.00 19,080.00
50 bxs. Clenidine amps.x5's 630.00 31,500.00
50 bxs. lpratrepium + Salbutamol 936.00 46,800.00

f
UDY x 20's

52
Id. at 138, Annex G-2.
53
Id. at 139, Annex G-3.
54
Id. at 140, Annex G-4.
55
Id. at 141, Annex G-5.
56
Id. at 142, Annex G-6.
 Decision 11 G.R. Nos. 213323 and 213324

s bxs. Insulin penfill x S's 2,2SO.OO l l,2SO.OO

s bxs. Insulin penfill x S's 2,250.00 11,250.0057
so bxs. Piracetam I gm/amps. X 12's 767.00 38,360.00
50 bxs. Piracetam 3 gm/amps. 754.00 37,700.00
10 bxs. Mesna amps. x S's 641.00 6,410.00 58
(illegible) vis. Cefuroxime 7SO mg vis. 360.00 180,000.00
(illegible) vis. Amikacin Sulfate 50 mg/ml 204.00 40,800.00
(illegible) vis. Gentamicyn 80 mg/ml 33.00 16,500.00
(illegible) vis. Ampicillin 2S0mg vials S0.00 2S,OOO.OO
(illegible) vis. Tranexamic Acid SOO mg. vis. 180.00 36,000.00 59
200 bxs. Paracetamol l 50mg./ml., 10' s, 600.00 120,000.0060
vials
500 amps. Hyoscine amp. 20mg/ml 63.00 31,500.00
1,500 amps. Tranexamic acid 500mg. 180.00 270,000.00 61
2 doz. Polyglactin 1-0, round ndle 7,800.00 lS,600.00
2 doz. Polyglactin 0, round ndle 7,800.00 IS,600.00
2 doz. Polyglactin 3-0, round ndle 7,800.00 15,600.00
l doz. Polyglactin 2-0, round ndle 7,800.00 7,800.00
2 doz. Polyglactin 4-0, round ndle 7,800.00 IS,600.00
2 doz. Polyglactin 4-0, cutting ndle 9,9SO.OO 19,900.00
2 doz. Polyglactin S-0, round ndle 16,000.00 32,000.00
1 doz. Polyglactin S-0, cutting ndle 9,950.00 9,950.0062
20 gals. Povidone 10% antiseptic sol. 1,650.00 33,000.00
8 gals. Stersol disinfecting sol w/ anti 7,800.00 62,400.00
rust
5 gals. Benzol surface disinfecting sol 3,420.00 17, 100.0063
& deodorizer
1000 amps Ars 3,000 132.00 132,000.00 64
1000 amps Ars 1,500 66.00 66,000.00 65
Total estimated costs (of the attached Purchase Requests) P4,388,041.00

The relationship between the attached Purchase Requests and the

disallowances is unclear. The sum of total estimated costs in the attached
Purchase Requests is about P4,388,04 l .OO, which constitutes only a small
fraction of the total disallowed transactions, Pl 18,039 ,493 .46. The Purchase
Requests also refer to generic items such as basic trash bags. 66 Notably, some
of them do not seem to refer to branded items. This Court notes that the July
18, 2006 Audit Observation Memorandum of the Commission on Audit Legal

57
58
Id. at 143, Annex G-7.
Id. at 144, Annex G-8.
/
59
Id. at 14S, Annex G-9.
60
Id. at 146, Annex G-10.
61
Id. at 147, Annex G-11.
62
Id. at 148, Annex G-12.
63
Id. at 149, Annex G-13.
64
Id. at lSO, Annex G-14.
65
Id. at 151, Annex G-15.
66
Id. at 136, Annex G.
 Decision 12 G.R. Nos. 213323 and 213324

and Adjudication Cluster Region IV observed that "no public bidding in the
procurement of medicines, medical supplies[,] and equipment was ever
conducted for the year 2005." 67 It would appear that even the trash bags may
have been purchased without public bidding.

This Court also notes the observation in the Regional Cluster Director's
Decision on the types of drugs purchased and their suitable, less expensive
substitutes:

There remain suitable substitutes in the market which can be

obtained at more advantageous prices to the government, a condition which
must also be considered before resorting to direct contracting with
companies claiming to be exclusive distributors/dealers. A case in point is
the purchase of "Biogesic" brand of Paracetamol 500 mg. acquired by the
agency at the price of P2.34 per piece. The market is flooded with many
brands of paracetamol. Based on the Philhealth's Drug Price Reference
Index (DPRI), a listing of prices of selected number of essential drugs
developed to promote drug price transparency, rational and fair drug
pricing, and rational use according to the DOH and Philhealth, such could
be available at prices from Pl to P4. Another case is the purchase of
Amoxicillin, 500 mg brand "Himox" which the agency purchased at
P13.305 per capsule. Amoxicillin 500 mg can be purchased at the cost of
range of PS to Pl 0 per capsule. Another case, is the purchase of Mefenamic
acid, 500 mg. purchased by the Provincial Government of Laguna from an
exclusive distributor at P14.29 per tablet which again according to DPRI
could be acquired at the range of P5 to P7 per tablet. The claim therefore
that the use of branded products is advantageous to the government or did
not result to any pecuniary loss to the government is of doubtful validity. 68

This Court further notes the Commission on Audit's observation that

some of the goods purchased were not sold by an exclusive dealer or
manufacturer:

Items Sugp_lier

Medicines and Vitamins

Vitamin A Cap. 200,000 IU cap.II OO's lnah Medica Enterprises
Vitamin B complex+ C amp Benutrex South East Star Enterprises
Multivitamin syrup 60ml Jalvin Jaltam Trade
Amoxicillin 500mg cap Himox 1OO's United Laboratories Inc.
Amoxicillin 250mg susp Himox 60 ml United Laboratories Inc.
Ampicillin 500mg vis Ampicin United Laboratories Inc.
Ampicillin 250 mg vis Ampicin United Laboratories Inc.
Ampicillin 500 mg vis Amplivacil Elin Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Paracetamol 500mg. tab. 500's United Laboratories Inc.
Biogesic
Paracetamol 250mg. syrup Biogesic United Laboratories Inc.
Paracetamol 120mg. syrup Biogesic
Carbocisteine 500mg cap. 1OO's
Ceascol
United Laboratories Inc.
Medlines Enterprises
I
67
Id. at 158.
68
Id. at 178.
Decision 13 G.R. Nos. 213323 and 213324

Carbocisteine I 00mg/60ml Fluralex Medlines Enterprises

Cefalexin 500mg cap 50's Lexum United Laboratories Inc.
Cefalexin 250mg susp. Lexum United Laboratories Inc.
Cotrimoxazole 400mg tabs Jaltrax Jaltam Trade
Cotrimoxazole 200mg sus Jaltrax Jaltam Trade

Medical Supplies
X-ray film 14xl 7xlOO's Kodak Marben Commercial
X-ray film 1lx14xlOO's Kodak Marben Commercial
X-ray film 14xl 7, lOO's Agfa Careline Enterprises
X-ray film llxl4, lOO'sAgfa Careline Enterprises
Dextrose 5% 0.9 Sodium Chloride Vitacare Philippines Co.
lOOOm
Dextrose 5% in water IOOOml 12's Vitacare Philippines Co.
Silkam 3/0 w/cutting needle DS24 Careline Enterprise
Silkam 2/0 w/cutting needle DS24 Careline Enterprise
Surgical Gloves size 6.5 Unimax Innovators Trading
Surgical Gloves size 7 Unimax Innovators Trading
Pop bandage Hospikast South East Star Enterprises
Medical Equipment
Dialyzer CA-130 Baxter Careline Enterprises
Oxygen regulator Mega Wealth Dist. Corp. 69

These circumstances and observations show that many of the items

purchased without bidding could have been purchased at a lower cost.
Petitioners fail to address these. This Court finds no basis to conclude that the
amount of Pl 18,039,493 .46 constitutes the reasonable value for the purchased
goods.

Petitioners have not clearly alleged or substantiated any basis for any
amount to constitute reasonable value for the purchased goods.

Likewise, petitioners, in good diligence, should have alleged and

supported their claims of good faith, which were based on their supposed
reliance on expert advice.

Petitioners fail to allege and support with good diligence their claims
of good faith. Petitioners claim that they relied on the expertise of the
Therapeutics Committees, which they allege to have recommended the chosen
brand names. They claim that they were right to rely on the Therapeutics
Committees, which are responsible for "determining the drugs to be procured
by government hospitals." 70 Under the Department of Health's Hospital
Pharmacy Management Manual, the Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee
has the authority to recommend or assist in the formulation of policies on
evaluation, selection, and therapeutic use of drugs in hospitals. 71 Executive
Order No. 49 issued by then President Fidel V. Ramos provides that the
Therapeutics Committee shall be responsible for determining which products
69
Id. at 34-35.
I
70
Id.atll-12.
71
Id. at 11.
Decision 14 G.R. Nos. 213323 and 213324

are to be procured by the respective government entities. 72

To convince this Court of their good faith, petitioners should have

sufficiently alleged facts that would show that there was no collusion between
petitioners and the Therapeutics Committees to use the committee's role as a
tool to circumvent the rules on procurement.

Petitioners Governor Lazaro, et al. claim:

Before the TC made its recommendation, it made exhaustive researches and

always consulted with the provincial doctors and health practitioners in the
nine (9) provincial hospitals and health centers. Further, before petitioners
made the final decision as to which medicines to purchase, they required the
TC to justify its recommendations in writing.

With this process, the POL was assured that its annual health
program, its Annual Procurement Plan (APP) for drugs and medicines,
including its dental and medical supplies and equipment, and their
acquisitions, squarely addressed the real needs of its constituents. 73

In their Memorandum, petitioners Governor Lazaro, et al. reformulated

their narration of events:

The TC, following the foregoing criteria, issued Justifications which

guided petitioners. Further, Certificates of Exclusive Distributorship and
Certificates of Product Registration were submitted.

Supported by the foregoing, Purchase Requests were prepared. 74

(Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

To support their claims, petitioners Governor Lazaro, et al. supposedly

attached copies of the Certifications/Justifications of the Therapeutics
Committees of different district hospitals of the Provincial Government of
Laguna. 75 A scrutiny of these documents reveals that half of the Annexes
were merely Certifications signed by various companies, pertaining to
Innovators Trading as their exclusive dealers. Annex E is a Letter signed by
the Promotions Manager of Colop last:

Strengthening our presence in the Laguna, Batangas area, we are please[ d]

to inform you that as of 01 Aug. 2004, we have appointed Innovators
Trading as our exclusive dealer for the ff. products: f
72
Id. at 12.
73
Id. at 6.
74
Rollo (G.R. No. 213324), p. 201.
75
Rollo (G.R. No. 213323) pp. 112-121, Annexes E to E-9 ofthe Petition.
Decision 15 G.R. Nos. 213323 and 213324

Comfeel Plus Ulcer Dressing 10 x 10 cm

Comfeel Plus Ulcer Dressing 20 x 20 cm
Comfeel Paste
Comfeel Powder
Purilon Gel
Mc2002 Ostomy bags, all sizes
Altema Ostomy bags, all sizes

Validity of this appointment will be effective 01 August 2004 to 31

December 2004. 76

Annex E-1 is an August 15, 2005 Certification signed by a sales

consultant ofBerovan Marketing, Inc. on exclusive distributorship:

This is to certify that INNOVATORS TRADING with business address at

#23P. Gomez Street, San Pablo City has been appointed as the Exclusive
Distributor of Berovan Marketing, Inc[.] for the Government Hospitals in
Laguna.

No other distributor could give a lower price other than our exclusive
distributor. 77

It should be noted that under this Certification, Innovators Trading was

not described as Berovan Marketing, Inc.'s exclusive distributor in general,
but rather, "appointed as the Exclusive Distributor" 78 for Laguna's
government hospitals.

Annex E-2 is a January 30, 2004 Certification whose contents are

practically identical to Annex E-1. 79

Annex E-3 is a March 4, 2004 Certification that reads:

This is to certify that INNOVATORS TRADING, located at San

Pablo, Laguna is an exclusive distributor of MICROBIO SPECIALISTS,
INC., for the province of Batangas, Laguna[,] and Quezon. And that there
is no dealer/sub-dealer that can offer [a] lower price than them. 80

Annex E-4 is a February 16, 2005 Certification signed by the vice

president of administration of Quest Diagnostic Systems, which reads:

This is to certify that INNOVATORS TRADING of San Pablo City[,]

Laguna is an EXCLUSIVE DISTRIBUTOR for Quest Diagnostics
f
76 Id.atll2.
7
1 Id.atll3.
7s Id.
79
Id.atll4.
so Id.atll5.
 Decision 16 G.R. Nos. 213323 and 213324

Systems' complete range of products in the Provincial Government

Hospitals in the area of Batangas, Mindoro[,] and Laguna[.] 81

These Certifications were not issued by the Therapeutics Committees.

Moreover, they do not give reasons for referring to brand names, and could
not have formed the basis of petitioners' good faith or reliance on the
Therapeutics Committees.

The rest of the Annexes alleged to have been issued by the Therapeutics
Committees of various district hospitals, denominated as Justifications, are
hardly more persuasive. Annexes E-5 to E-8 substantially and identically
read:

Based on our clinical experience, the drugs requested are effective

and have less adverse reaction and these drugs are listed in our National
Drug Formulary.

We refrain from using other drugs not included in these requisition

because we found out that these adverse effects prolong the length of stay
of patient.

Our rationale for selecting these drugs are based on the following:

a. Where several comparable drugs are available for the same

therapeutic indication[,] it is necessary to select one which
provides the most favorable benefit/risk ratio.

b. These are drugs which are thoroughly investigated and therefore

the best understood with respect to its beneficial properties and
limitation.

c. These drugs with most favorable pharmacokinetic properties,

e.g. to improve compliance, minimize risk in various
pathophysiological state. 82

Only Annex-E9 varied in its contents, naming several drugs:

Based on our clinical experience[,] the drugs requested are effective

and have less adverse reaction, and these drugs are listed in our National
Drug Formulary.

We refrain from using other drugs not included in this requisition

because we found out that these have effects and prolonging (sic) the length
of stay of patients. The drugs listed in our requisition are:

1. 51712004-10 bxs. D5% in 8.9 Sodium Chloride, lOOOml., 12's

2. 51712004- 10 bxs. D5% in Water, lOOOml., 12's
I
f
8
1 Id.atll6.
s2 Id. at 117.
Decision 17 G.R. Nos. 213323 and 213324

3. 91612004- 12 bxs. Carbocisteine 500mg. cap., IOO's, Ceascol

4. 9/6/2004 - 96 btls. Carbocisteine 1OOmg./60 ml., Fluralex
5. 6/3/2005 - 100 vls. Ampicillin 500 mg., vl., Ampicin
6. 61712005 - 100 vls. Ampicillin 250mg., vl., Ampicin

Our rationale for selecting these drugs are based on the following:

a) Where several comparable drugs are available for the same

therapeutic indication[,] it is necessary to select one which
provides the most favorable benefit/risk ratio.
b) These drugs that are thoroughly investigated and therefore the
best understood with [respect] to its beneficial properties and
limitations.
c) These drugs with most favorable pharmacokinetic properties,
e.g. to improve compliance, minimize risk in various
pathophysiological state.
d) That no suitable substitutes of substantially the same quality are
available at lower prices. 83

Petitioners Governor Lazaro, et al.' s submissions do not clearly allege

and establish the sequence of events, such as when and how the Therapeutics
Committees made the recommendations, and when and how petitioners
responded to them. These circumstances are vital in establishing petitioners'
frame of mind and good faith.

Petitioners Governor Lazaro, et al. suggest that the Purchase Requests

were prepared based on the Justifications by the Therapeutics Committees. 84
However, the Justifications are undated, and aside from Annex E-9, do not
mention any particular supplies or drugs, which suggest that they may have
been prepared after the Purchase Requests. The Justifications mention "drugs
requested" and "requisition," but aside from Annex E-9, petitioners have not
attached anything to show what drugs they were referring to. It is unclear
what drugs requested were being justified in the Justifications.

Without any other attachment, this Court is inclined to surmise that the
"drugs requested" and "requisition" mentioned in the Justifications pertained
to the Purchase Requests. If so, then the Purchase Requests were prepared
before the Justifications, not following the advice of the Therapeutics
Committees.

Further, this Court notes the Commission on Audit's observations that:

( 1) the Therapeutics Committees did not refer to any clinical study to support
f
83
Id. at 121.
8
4 Id. at 599.
Decision 18 G.R. Nos. 213323 and 213324

the claims in the Certifications/Justifications; 85 and (2) these

Certifications/Justifications were merely recommendatory, whereas the
language of Republic Act No. 9184 is mandatory. 86

In asserting limited or complete lack of liability based on the principle

of quantum meruit and good faith, petitioners, in good diligence, bear the
burden to clearly allege and support the factual basis for their claims. It is not
this Court's duty to construe their incomplete submissions and vague
narrations to determine merit in their assertions.

Petitioners did not fulfill their burden; thus, their claims must be
rejected.

IV

The Commission on Audit based petitioner Villanueva' s liability on her

duties as Provincial Accountant:

In response, it must be stressed that it is the duty of petitioner

Villanueva, as Provincial Accountant, to certify or confirm not only the
completeness but also the propriety of the documents relative to the subject
procurement. Here, considering that the subject purchase amounts to
millions of provincial funds, petitioner Villanueva should have exercised
utmost diligence before she certified the completeness and propriety of the
supporting documents of the disbursement vouchers.

In certifying that the documents were complete and in order, when

they were in fact not so, petitioner Villanueva failed to act with due care and
diligence, knowing fully well that the approval of the disbursement
vouchers for the release of public funds largely depends on her certification.
Contrary to her claims, petitioner Villanueva failed to meticulously inspect
all the documents submitted to her to ensure that the circumstances she was
certifying were indeed true and correct.

Indeed, petitioner Villanueva is liable for her failure to exercise due

diligence in the performance of her duties as Provincial Accountant. 87

However, petitioner Villanueva has repeatedly pointed out that she was
designated as Officer-in-Charge of the Office of the Provincial Accountant
only on July 5, 2005. 88 Prior to this, she was not a signatory to any document
related to disbursements and purchases made by the Provincial Government
of Laguna. She was an Accountant IV, responsible only for preparing
financial reports and bank reconciliations. 89 It was her predecessor as j
85
Rollo (G.R. No. 213324), p. 129.
86 Id.
87
Id.atl32-133.
88
Id. at 176.
89
Id. at 177.
 Decision 19 G.R. Nos. 213323 and 213324

Provincial Accountant, Azucena C. Gacias, who signed and certified the

documents pertaining to the purchases in 2004. 90

Despite petitioner Villanueva's repeated assertions, respondents

ignored the material issue.

Public officers should not be held liable for disallowed transactions in

which they did not participate. Holding them liable without any proof of their
participation in the transaction is grave abuse of discretion. 91 Commission on
Audit Circular No. 006-09 92 provides how the Commission on Audit should
determine the liability of a public officer in relation to audit disallowances:

SECTION 16. Determination of Persons Responsible/Liable. -

16.1 The Liability of public officers and other persons for audit
disallowances/charges shall be determined on the basis of (a) the
nature of the disallowance/charge; (b) the duties and responsibilities
or obligations of officers/employees concerned; (c) the extent of their
participation in the disallowed/charged transaction; and (d) the
amount of damage or loss to the government, thus:

16.1.1 Public officers who are custodians of government funds shall

be liable for their failure to ensure that such funds are safely
guarded against loss or damage; that they are expended,
utilized, disposed of or transferred in accordance with law and
regulations, and on the basis of prescribed documents and
necessary records.

16.1.2 Public officers who certify as to the necessity, legality and

availability of funds or adequacy of documents shall be liable
according to their respective certifications.

16.1.3 Public officers who approve or authorize expenditures shall be

liable for losses arising out of their negligence or failure to
exercise the diligence of a good father of a family.

16.1.4 Public officers and other persons who confederated or

conspired in a transaction which is disadvantageous or
prejudicial to the government shall be held liable jointly and
severally with those who benefited therefrom.

16.1.5 The payee of an expenditure shall be personally liable for a

disallowance where the ground thereof is his failure to submit
the required documents, and the Auditor is convinced that the
disallowed transaction did not occur or has no basis in fact.

16.2 The liability for audit charges shall be measured by the individual

go Id.
participation and involvement of public officers whose duties require
I
91
Suarez v. Commission on Audit, 355 Phil. 527 (1998) [Per J. Panganiban, En Banc].
92
Prescribing the Use of the Rules and Regulations on Settlement of Accounts.
 Decision 20 G.R. Nos. 213323 and 213324

appraisal/assessment/collection of government revenues and receipts

in the charged transaction.

16.3 The liability of persons determined to be liable under an ND/NC shall

be solidary and the Commission may go against any person liable
without prejudice to the latter's claim against the rest of the persons
liable. 93

Since petitioner Villanueva's liability for the disallowed transactions is

anchored on her position as Provincial Accountant, she should only be liable
for the transactions that occurred after she was designated Officer-in-Charge
of the Office of the Provincial Accountant. Finding her liable for
reimbursements of transactions prior to this constitutes grave abuse of
discretion. However, which of the disallowed transactions occurred before
her designation is a question of fact that this Court has no evidentiary basis to
determine. This Court is constrained to remand the case to the Commission
on Audit to properly determine this matter.

WHEREFORE, the Petition in G.R. No. 213323 is DENIED and the

Petition in G.R. No. 213324 is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The August 17,
2011 Decision and May 6, 2014 Resolution of the Commission on Audit are
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner Evelyn T. Villanueva is
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 cases are REMANDED to the Commission on Audit, which
is directed to determine which of the disallowed transactions occurred prior
to July 5, 2005, for which petitioner Villanueva is not liable.

SO ORDERED.

WE CONCUR:

9
' Commission on Audit Circular No. 006-09 (2009), sec. 16.
Decision 21 G.R. Nos. 213323 and 213324

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice

Associate Justice

Associate Justice

ANDRE Jl!:ilfEYES, JR.

Asso~il Justice

&, u¥ E C. REYES, JR. RAM~ERNANDO

Associate Justice Associate Justice

Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
court.

·""·

._!erL { f{'.;>~~r~ ~':1' g,~nc

::'illpr!.'llH: t:ourl