COA backs contractor's P53-M claim against Makati
Published Feb 19, 2020 12:00 am
By Ben Rosario
The Commission on Audit (COA) has ordered Makati City to pay P53 million it allegedly owes a construction firm that won the allegedly overpriced contract for the construction of the controversial Makati City Hall 2 car park building in 2013.
Commission on Audit (MANILA BULLETIN FILE PHOTO)
In a decision handed down by the COA-Commission Proper, the audit agency upheld the Petition for Money Claim filed by Hilmarcs Construction Corporation against the city government for the payment of the balance of the contract price for the improvement of the airconditioning system of the Makati City Hall 2.
Hilmarc’s also sought payment of legal interest, attorney’s fees, and other expenses.
It was recalled that Hilmarc’s had been the object of a Senate investigation in connection with the alleged overpricing of the parking building project.
Then Senator Antonio Trillanes IV had sought placing the firm under provisional blacklist for its alleged involvement in the controversy.
In its petition filed before the COA-CP, Hilmarc’s said that in 2013 it bagged the contract for the improvement of the airconditioning system of the new Makati City Hall building after submitting the lowest bid of P145,226,496 for the project.
On July 19, 2014, Hilmarc’s declared the project fully completed and this was accepted by the city government. It was then paid P89,256,204.44.
The remainder of the contract price was denied Hilmarc’s as the city government insisted that the firm failed to submit various documents which is mandatory under Republic Act 9184. City officials added that clearance for the payment was still to be sought from COA’s Fraud Audit Office.
Responding to the complaint, the city government said that based on the contract, the project should have been completed November 19, 2013 and not July 19, 2014, adding that there was no approved extension for its completion.
However, the city government did not dispute the claim that the project was completed.
In its decision, the three-man COA-CP said the delay in the completion of the project cannot be held against Hilmarc’s as it was able to present a letter indicating that the city approved its request for extension for the completion of the project.
Noting that the project was indeed completed, audit officials said Hilmarc’s should be compensated “for what it had performed.”
“Otherwise, it would result in undue enrichment on the part of the city whose constituents benefitted from the project,” the panel said.
However, the panel chaired by Chairman Michael Aguinaldo said the interest sought could not be granted. It pointed out that doing so will be “tantamount to recognition of penalty or indemnity for damages” which COA is not authorized to grant.
The claim for attorney’s fee was also rejected by the COA-CP. It pointed out that this cannot be recovered as part of damages “because of the public policy that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate.”
Commission on Audit (MANILA BULLETIN FILE PHOTO)
In a decision handed down by the COA-Commission Proper, the audit agency upheld the Petition for Money Claim filed by Hilmarcs Construction Corporation against the city government for the payment of the balance of the contract price for the improvement of the airconditioning system of the Makati City Hall 2.
Hilmarc’s also sought payment of legal interest, attorney’s fees, and other expenses.
It was recalled that Hilmarc’s had been the object of a Senate investigation in connection with the alleged overpricing of the parking building project.
Then Senator Antonio Trillanes IV had sought placing the firm under provisional blacklist for its alleged involvement in the controversy.
In its petition filed before the COA-CP, Hilmarc’s said that in 2013 it bagged the contract for the improvement of the airconditioning system of the new Makati City Hall building after submitting the lowest bid of P145,226,496 for the project.
On July 19, 2014, Hilmarc’s declared the project fully completed and this was accepted by the city government. It was then paid P89,256,204.44.
The remainder of the contract price was denied Hilmarc’s as the city government insisted that the firm failed to submit various documents which is mandatory under Republic Act 9184. City officials added that clearance for the payment was still to be sought from COA’s Fraud Audit Office.
Responding to the complaint, the city government said that based on the contract, the project should have been completed November 19, 2013 and not July 19, 2014, adding that there was no approved extension for its completion.
However, the city government did not dispute the claim that the project was completed.
In its decision, the three-man COA-CP said the delay in the completion of the project cannot be held against Hilmarc’s as it was able to present a letter indicating that the city approved its request for extension for the completion of the project.
Noting that the project was indeed completed, audit officials said Hilmarc’s should be compensated “for what it had performed.”
“Otherwise, it would result in undue enrichment on the part of the city whose constituents benefitted from the project,” the panel said.
However, the panel chaired by Chairman Michael Aguinaldo said the interest sought could not be granted. It pointed out that doing so will be “tantamount to recognition of penalty or indemnity for damages” which COA is not authorized to grant.
The claim for attorney’s fee was also rejected by the COA-CP. It pointed out that this cannot be recovered as part of damages “because of the public policy that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate.”