COA grants P2M claim vs Davao de Oro town on electronic billboard contract
The Commission on Audit (COA) has granted the more than P2 million money claim of a construction company against the municipality of Maco in Davao de Oro for the delivery and installation of an outdoor LED (light emitting diodes) electronic billboard in 2019.
However, COA denied the claim of CTEC Trading and Construction, Inc. for moral and exemplary damages, lawyer's fees, and other litigation expenses.
CTEC Trading, through its president Neil I. Luna, sought a total of P4,738,517.19 as payment for the electronic billboard and for damages, fees, and other expenses.
The firm was declared the winning bidder for the delivery and installation of the billboard for P2,000,188.05. When it demanded the payment with three percent monthly interest, the municipality told the firm that it will pay only after the firm has complied with its commitment to place a tempered glass screen protector over the billboard.
However, CTEC did not install the tempered glass screen protector and explained that doing so will cause poor display visibility, system life reduction, and might even cause serious hazard to pedestrians.
When the Petition for Money Claim reached the COA, CTEC argued that it delivered the billboard in accordance with technical specifications, and the municipality accepted the same after inspection, verification, and testing without any objections.
In response, the municipality of Maco countered that it had already prepared the check for payment to CTEC but it was not retrieved. It also said that CTEC still has to install an external shield based on its verbal agreement with the town mayor.
In resolving the issue, COA said that CTEC should be compensated for the billboard it delivered in the amount of P2,000,188.05. However, it said that CTEC's claims for payment of interest, moral and exemplary damages, as well as lawyer's fees and other litigation expenses are beyond the jurisdiction of the COA.
"It is well settled both in principle and authority that interest is not to be awarded against a sovereign government unless its consent has been manifested by an act of its legislature or by a lawful contract of its executive officers. If there is doubt upon the subject, that doubt must be resolved in favor of the state," COA pointed out.