Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MARIO R. MELCHOR v. COA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 183444 2011-10-12	DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS v. RONALDO E. QUIWA SERENO, J.
Royal Trust Construction was again mentioned in Melchor v. COA,[29] which was decided a few months after Eslao. In Melchor, it was found that the contract was approved by an unauthorized person and, similar to the case at bar, the required certification of the chief accountant was absent. The Court did not deny or justify the invalidity of the contract. The Court, however, found that the government unjustifiably denied what the latter owed to the contractors, leaving them uncompensated after the government had benefited from the already completed work.
	GRNo. 188818 2011-05-31	TOMAS R. OSMENA v. COA BRION, J.
The Pre-Qualification, Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC), upon the recommendation of the Technical Committee and after a careful deliberation, approved the change and extra work orders. It bears pointing out that two members of the PBAC were members of the Sanggunian as well - Rodolfo Cabrera (Chairman, Committee on Finance) and Ronald Cuenco (Minority Floor Leader). A COA representative was also present during the deliberations of the PBAC. None of these officials voiced any objection to the lack of a prior authorization from the Sanggunian or a supplemental agreement. The RTC Decision in fact mentioned that the Project Post Completion Report and Acceptance was approved by an authorized representative of the City of Cebu on September 21, 1994.[23] "[a]s the projects had been completed, accepted and used by the [City of Cebu]," the RTC ruled that there is "no necessity of [executing] a supplemental agreement."[24] Indeed, as we declared in Mario R. Melchor v. COA,[25] a supplemental agreement to cover change or extra work orders is not always mandatory, since the law adopts the permissive word "may." Despite its initial refusal, the Sanggunian was eventually compelled to enact the appropriation ordinance in order to satisfy the RTC judgments. Belated as it may be, the enactment of the appropriation ordinance, nonetheless, constitutes as sufficient compliance with the requirements of the law. It serves as a confirmatory act signifying the Sanggunian's ratification of all the change and extra work orders issued by Osmeña. In National Power Corporation (NPC) v. Hon. Rose Marie Alonzo-Legasto, etc., et. al., the Court considered the compromise agreement between the NPC and the construction company as a ratification of the extra work performed, without prior approval from the NPC's Board of Directors.
	GR No. 182967 2011-04-06	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS v. KANLAON CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISES CO. CARPIO, J.
The law expressly declares void a contract that fails to comply with the two requirements, namely, an appropriation law funding the contract and a certification of appropriation and fund availability.[22] The clear purpose of these requirements is to insure that government contracts are never signed unless supported by the corresponding appropriation law and fund availability.[23]
	GR No. 178830 2008-07-14	ROLEX SUPLICO v. NATIONAL ECONOMIC REYES, R.T., J.
In David v. Macapagal-Arroyo,[18] We took judicial notice of the announcement by the Office of the President banning all rallies and canceling all permits for public assemblies following the issuance of Presidential Proclamation No. 1017 and General Order No. 5.