Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 183444 2011-10-12	DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS v. RONALDO E. QUIWA SERENO, J.
It was, however, undisputed that there was no certification from the chief accountant of DPWH regarding the said expenditure. In addition, the project manager has a limited authority to approve contracts in an amount not exceeding P1 million.[26] Notwithstanding these irregularities, it should be pointed out that there is no novelty regarding the question of satisfying a claim for construction contracts entered into by the government, where there was no appropriation and where the contracts were considered void due to technical reasons. It has been settled in several cases that payment for services done on account of the government, but based on a void contract, cannot be avoided. The Court first resolved such question in Royal Trust Construction v. Commission on Audit.[27] In that case, the court issued a Resolution granting the claim of Royal Trust Construction under a void contract. The unpublished Resolution reads as follows: NOV 23 1988
	GR Nos. 151373-74 2005-11-17	DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH v. C.V. CANCHELA CARPIO-MORALES, J.
Since the questioned Agreements are null and void for want of the requisite covering certificates of appropriation, the teachings in Eslao v. Commission on Audit[67] and in Royal Trust Construction v. Commission on Audit[68] must be heeded.