This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2013-09-30 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| For one to be successfully prosecuted under Section 3(g) of RA 3019, the following elements must be proven: "1) the accused is a public officer; 2) the public officer entered into a contract or transaction on behalf of the government; and 3) the contract or transaction was grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government."[44] However, private persons may likewise be charged with violation of Section 3(g) of RA 3019 if they conspired with the public officer. Thus, "if there is an allegation of conspiracy, a private person may be held liable together with the public officer, in consonance with the avowed policy of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act which is 'to repress certain acts of public officers and private persons alike which may constitute graft or corrupt practices or which may lead thereto.'"[45] | |||||
|
2012-07-04 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Consequently, the provision in the "Instruction to Bidders" stating that no award of the contract shall be made to a bidder whose bid price is lower than the allowable government estimate (AGE) or AAE is not valid. The rule on the matter is clear. The PSC-BAC is obliged to observe and enforce the same in the procurement of goods and services for the project. The law on public bidding is not an empty formality.[29] A strict adherence to the principles, rules and regulations on public bidding must be sustained if only to preserve the integrity and the faith of the general public on the procedure.[30] | |||||
|
2012-02-07 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Contrary to the thrust of Justice Sereno's dissent, the lack of compliance with the above guidelines did not invalidate the audit report for violation of the CDA's right to due process. We categorically ruled in Nava v. Palattao[6] that neither Arriola nor the COA Memorandum No. 97-012 can be given any retroactive effect. Thus, although Arriola was already promulgated at the time, it is not correct to say that the COA in this case violated the afore-quoted guidelines which have not yet been issued at the time the audit was conducted in 1993. | |||||
|
2012-02-07 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| We stress anew that it is the general policy of the Court to sustain the decisions of administrative authorities, especially one which is constitutionally-created, not only on the basis of the doctrine of separation of powers but also for their presumed expertise in the laws they are entrusted to enforce. [14] Findings of quasi-judicial agencies, such as the COA, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters are generally accorded not only respect but at times even finality if such findings are supported by substantial evidence, [15] and the decision and order are not tainted with unfairness or arbitrariness that would amount to grave abuse of discretion. [16] | |||||
|
2009-09-02 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| We are not unmindful of the fact that petitioners failed to conduct the requisite public bidding for the questioned procurements. However, the lack of public bidding alone does not automatically equate to a manifest and gross disadvantage to the government. As we had occasion to declare in Nava v. Sandiganbayan,[22] the absence of a public bidding may mean that the government was not able to secure the lowest bargain in its favor and may open the door to graft and corruption. However, this does not satisfy the third element of the offense charged, because the law requires that the disadvantage must be manifest and gross. After all, penal laws are strictly construed against the government. | |||||