COA orders gov't school to pay P3.5M to private firm for multimedia language laboratory system
The Commission on Audit (COA) has ordered the Eulogio Amang Rodriquez Institute of Science and Technology (EARIST) to pay Mars Laboratory Instruments Center (MLIC) P3.5 million, the amount still due to the firm for the 4-in-1 Multimedia Language Laboratory System installed in 2014.
In a four-page decision, COA partially granted the petition for money claim filed by MLIC proprietor Marciano L. Laburada against EARIST for the supply, delivery, and installation of laboratory system for P23,850,000.
Case records showed that in November 2014, EARIST, through its President Dr. Eduardo S. Carlo, entered into a contract with MLIC for the supply, delivery, and installation of XClass Evo Professional Version Classroom and Digital Language Laboratory System with Interactive Whiteboard, 10 units of Acer Multimedia DLP Projector 3500 Ansi Lumens with nine Motorized Projector Screens. Both parties agreed on the amount P23,850,000.
Upon completion of the project, EARIST acknowledged receipt and accepted the equipment on Nov. 25, 2014.
However, COA said that when state auditors reviewed the contract between EARIST and MLIC, it was found out that the contract had no funds available, which is contrary to Section 86 of Presidential Decree No. 1445.
It said the contract also had no approval from the Board of Trustees (BoT) and specified the brand name of the software and projector in violation of Section 18 of Republic Act No. 9184, the Government Procurement Act.
For its part, EARIST said that the absence of authority of the BoT made the contract a personal undertaking of Dr. Callo such that Laburada's claim against the school has no legal basis.
COA's audit team recommended the payment of the money claim. Thereafter, the Technical Services Office (TSO) of the COA issued a report finding that the amount of P3,539,976.58 is due to MLIC.
Despite the irregularities, COA agreed that the money claim may be granted based on quantum meruit or "the amount one deserves."
"It would be the height of injustice to deny the money claim as this would result in unjust enrichment on the part of EARIST and financial loss on the part of MLIC which could not be faulted both for the absence of an authorized source and BoT's approval for the contract," COA said.
"Thus, MLIC is entitled to payment corresponding to the reasonable value of the items and services it had delivered," it added.
In its decision, COA also referred the case to the Office of the Ombudsman for investigation and filing of appropriate charges, if warranted, against the persons responsible for the transaction.