This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2011-08-24 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In Chavez v. Public Estates Authority,[110] the Amended Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) entered into between the Public Estates Authority and the Amari Coastal Bay and Development Corporation (AMARI) was declared null and void ab initio because it, among others, sought to convey to AMARI, a private entity, reclaimed public lands without the benefit of a public bidding. The Court cited Section 79 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1445, otherwise known as the Government Auditing Code, which requires the government to sell valuable government property through public bidding.[111] The Court stated further that the Commission on Audit implements Section 79 of the Government Auditing Code through Circular No. 89-296[112] dated 27 January 1989. This circular emphasizes that government assets must be disposed of only through public auction.[113] In denying respondents' Second Motions for Reconsideration and sustaining the invalidity of the Amended JVA, this Court reiterated that the JVA is a negotiated contract which clearly contravenes Section 79 of P.D. 1445.[114] | |||||
|
2009-12-04 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Section 87. Void contract and liability of officer. Any contract entered into contrary to the requirements of the two immediately preceding sections shall be void, and the officer or officers entering into the contract shall be liable to the government or other contracting party for any consequent damage to the same extent as if the transaction had been wholly between private parties. (Emphasis supplied) Applying Section 29(1), Article VI of the Constitution, as implanted in Sections 84 and 85 of the Government Auditing Code, a law must first be enacted by Congress appropriating P6.185 billion as compromise money before payment to Radstock can be made.[67] Otherwise, such payment violates a prohibitory law and thus void under Article 5 of the Civil Code which states that "[a]cts executed against the provisions of mandatory or prohibitory laws shall be void, except when the law itself authorizes their validity." | |||||
|
2009-12-04 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Yes, Your Honor.[69] (Emphasis supplied) Without an appropriation law, the use of the toll fees to pay Radstock would constitute malversation of public funds. Even counsel for Radstock expressly admits that the use of the toll fees to pay Radstock constitutes malversation of public funds, thus:ASSOCIATE JUSTICE CARPIO: | |||||
|
2007-09-13 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| On April 19, 2004, the Commission on Audit (COA),[11] in response to respondent Dela Paz's letter-query on the applicability of the public bidding requirement under COA Circular No. 89-296[12] on the divestment by the SSS of its entire EPICB equity holdings, stated that the "circular covers all assets of government agencies except those merchandize or inventory held for sale in the regular course of business." And while it expressed the opinion[13] that the sale of the subject Shares are "subject to guidelines in the Circular," the COA qualified its determination with a statement that such negotiated sale would partake of a stock exchange transaction and, therefore, would be adhering to the general policy of public auction. Wrote the COA:Nevertheless, since activities in the stock exchange which offer to the general public stocks listed therein, the proposed sale, although denominated as "negotiated sale" substantially complies with the general policy of public auction as a mode of divestment. This is so for shares of stocks are actually being auctioned to the general public every time that the stock exchanges are openly operating. | |||||
|
2002-07-09 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Government Auditing Code through Circular No. 89-296[91] dated January 27, 1989. This circular emphasizes that government assets must be disposed of only through public auction, and a negotiated sale can be resorted to only in case of "failure of public auction." At the public auction sale, only Philippine citizens are qualified to bid for PEA's reclaimed foreshore and submerged alienable lands of the public domain. Private corporations are barred from bidding at the auction sale of any kind of alienable land of the public | |||||
|
2000-11-20 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Under Section 504 of the Government Auditing Rules and Regulations, a public auction, which is the mode of divestment or disposal of government property, shall adhere to established mechanics and procedures in public bidding.[43] In such public auction sales, the presence of a Commission on Audit (COA) representative who shall see to the proper observance of auditing rules is imperative.[44] In this case, there is no record that a COA representative witnessed the public auction on December 2, 1993. Neither is there a showing that the APT observed the requirement of COA Circular No. 89-296, to the effect that a government entity that is disposing of government property shall furnish the COA with the disposal procedure adopted. Likewise, nowhere in the record is it stated that the APT heeded the suggestion of Secretary of Finance and COP Chairman Jayme that its decision to grant Kawasaki the right to top the highest bid be made "known to the Commission on Audit." What appears on record is that the COA did not approve the ASBR, specifically the provision on the right to top the highest bidder. Thus, then COA Chairman Pascasio S. Banaria, replying to the query of petitioner's counsel on whether or not the COA had approved the right to top the highest bid by 5%, stated: "Per information received from our Auditor at APT, no prior approval was issued by their Office regarding said preferential option. We have instructed our Auditor thereat to advise this Office of the result of the review of the Corporation's procedures for the sale of the assets including the review of the bidding documents pertaining to the subject public bidding pursuant to the provisions of the Commission on Audit Circular No. 89-296 dated January 27, 1989."[45] | |||||
|
2000-11-20 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Under Section 504 of the Government Auditing Rules and Regulations, a public auction, which is the mode of divestment or disposal of government property, shall adhere to established mechanics and procedures in public bidding.[43] In such public auction sales, the presence of a Commission on Audit (COA) representative who shall see to the proper observance of auditing rules is imperative.[44] In this case, there is no record that a COA representative witnessed the public auction on December 2, 1993. Neither is there a showing that the APT observed the requirement of COA Circular No. 89-296, to the effect that a government entity that is disposing of government property shall furnish the COA with the disposal procedure adopted. Likewise, nowhere in the record is it stated that the APT heeded the suggestion of Secretary of Finance and COP Chairman Jayme that its decision to grant Kawasaki the right to top the highest bid be made "known to the Commission on Audit." What appears on record is that the COA did not approve the ASBR, specifically the provision on the right to top the highest bidder. Thus, then COA Chairman Pascasio S. Banaria, replying to the query of petitioner's counsel on whether or not the COA had approved the right to top the highest bid by 5%, stated: "Per information received from our Auditor at APT, no prior approval was issued by their Office regarding said preferential option. We have instructed our Auditor thereat to advise this Office of the result of the review of the Corporation's procedures for the sale of the assets including the review of the bidding documents pertaining to the subject public bidding pursuant to the provisions of the Commission on Audit Circular No. 89-296 dated January 27, 1989."[45] | |||||