Search for Document:

Search
Clear Advanced Search Help
COA Issuances >> Decisions of the Commission Proper >> COA DECISION
NO. 2017-251
View Side by Side Home Back Email Print or Download

DECISION NO. 2017-251

August 18, 2017

Subject : Petition
for Review, with request for exclusion
from liability, of Mr. Titingalangit C.
Sumagayan, District Engineer, Department of
Public Works and Highways (DPWH), Lanao
del Sur 1 st Engineering District, of
Commission on Audit Special Audit Office
(SAO) Decision No. 2013-003 dated May 23,
2013, which affirmed SAO Notice of
Disallowance Nos. DPWH-11-001-101-(09),
DPWH-11-002-101-(08 & 09), DPWH-11-
004-101-(08 & 09), and DPWH-11-005-101-
(08 & 09), all dated August 26, 2011, on the
procurement of construction materials, in the
total amount of P357,125,626.82

DECISION
FACTS OF THE CASE

Before this Commission is the Petition for Review, 1 with request for exclusion
from liability, of Mr. Titingalangit C. Sumagayan, District Engineer, Department of
Public Works and Highways (DPWH), Lanao del Sur 1 st Engineering District, of
Commission on Audit (COA) Special Audit Office (SAO) Decision No. 2013-003 dated
May 23, 2013. The decision denied the appeal and affirmed the following SAO Notices
of Disallowance (NDs):

ND No. Amount
DPWH-11-001-101-(09) P 32,816,577.56
DPWH-11-002-101-(08 & 09) 152,231,915.40
DPWH-11-004-101-(08 & 09) 84,209,737.25
DPWH-11-005-101-(08 & 09) 87,867,396.61
Total P357,125,626.82

Petitioner received the NDs on December 16, 2011. 2 He filed an appeal from the
NDs on June 4, 2012 3 or after 170 days from receipt thereof. On June 10, 2013, 4 the
petitioner received SAO Decision No. 2013-003 which denied the appeal. On June 21,
2013, 5 or 181 days from receipt of the ND, he filed this Petition for Review, which was
beyond the 180-day reglementary period provided by the rules 6 of this Commission.

In the interest of substantial justice and considering that the petition was
belatedly filed for only one day, this Commission shall relax the rules and decide on the
merits.

Records show that a Special Audit Team (SAT) was created under COA Office
Order No. 2010-531 7 dated August 10, 2010 to conduct financial audit of the
transactions of the DPWH-Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM)
covering calendar years (CYs) 2008-2009. Upon audit of the transactions, the SAT
issued the aforesaid NDs on August 26, 2011. The liabilities of Mr. Sumagayan under
each ND are detailed as follows:

ND Nos. Supplier Amount Liability of

Mr.
Sumagayan
 DPWH-11-001-101-(09) All Trade Traders P32,816,577.56 P1,215,345.00
DPWH-11-002-101-(08 & Corics Marketing 152,231,915.40 1,139,625.00
09)
DPWH-11-004-101-(08 & Light Edge Marketing 84,209,737.25 1,558,865.00
09)
DPWH-11-005-101-(08 & Manitz Multi- 87,867,396.61 1,206,280.00
09) Marketing
TOTAL P357,125,626.82 P5,120,115.00

The procurement of construction materials from the above-named suppliers was

disallowed in audit on the following grounds:

1. The procurement did not go through public bidding, in violation of the

pertinent provisions of Republic Act (RA) No. 9184; 8

2. The purchases were unaccounted for. The construction materials were

purchased without specific purpose or project intended. While it was
indicated in the Purchase Order (PO) and the accompanying
Requisition and Issuance Slip (RIS) that the materials should be
delivered to the job site and that the materials were delivered to the job
site, respectively, none of the supporting documents disclosed the
exact location of the job site;

3. The dates of the alleged transactions could not be ascertained as the

payments were supported with unnumbered and undated Purchase
Request (PR), PO, RIS, and Inspection and Acceptance Report (IAR);

4. The alleged procured materials were inspected and accepted by

unidentified persons. The signatures appearing in the IARs were not
legible and have no resemblance orsimilarity to any of the signatories
in the payroll of DPWH-ARMM;

5. The suppliers did not reply to the request of the team confirming
receipt of payments from DPWH-ARMM and validity of the
transactions;

6. Reported gross receipts of Corics Marketing of P1million each year,

from CYs 2008 to 2010, from the Municipal Government of Datu Odin
Sinsuat was far below its reported transactions with the DPWH-
ARMM alone in the total amount of P186.660 million. On the other
 hand, Light Edge Marketing reported insignificant gross sales to the
Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) in CYs 2008 and 2009 of only
P5,766.66 and P12,214.00, respectively, when its transactions with the
DPWH-ARMM alone already amounted to P99.364 million. Likewise,
All Trade Traders and Manitz Multi-Marketing, reportedly owned by a
certain Mr. Guiamael S. Saglayan and located in the same residential
building, have no records on file with the BIR Revenue District No.
107, Cotabato City; and

7. The transactions with Corics Marketing were supported with Charge

Invoices (CIs) which do not bear the BIR Authority to Print. Nineteen
transactions amounting to P10,961,137.93 were supported
with spurious Official Receipts (ORs). The ORs were bearing dates
earlier than the purported date of issuance by the BIR of the Authority
to Print ORs. Two other transactions amounting to P361,324.00 were
not supported by either Invoice or OR. One hundred thirty-eight
checks in the total amount of P143,400,000.00 were encashed by a
certain Al-Rael M Abdula, an employee of the DPWH-ARMM, who
also encashed 66 checks of other suppliers including those issued to
Light Edge Marketing and Manitz Multi-Marketing.

Mr. Sumagayan was held liable for approving the pertinent DVs, POs, PRs, and
RISs, in his capacity as Regional Secretary-Designate of DPWH-ARMM.

On June 4, 2012, Mr. Sumagayan filed an appeal 9 from the NDs. The Director,
nonetheless, denied the appeal in her SAO Decision No. 2013-003 10 dated May 23,
2013.

Hence, this petition 11 positing the following arguments:

1. The subject NDs should be lifted as there were no definite findings that
there were ghost or short deliveries. Moreover, the provisions of RA
No. 9184 were substantially complied with. They caused the
publication of the Invitation to Apply for Eligibility and to Bid (IAEB)
for the procurement of construction materials in September 24, 2009
issue of the Mindanao Gold Star Daily, a newspaper of general
circulation in Mindanao. Despite the advertisement, no one responded
to the IAEB. To avoid further delay, the Bids and Awards Committee
(BAC) was constrained to negotiate the procurement of construction
materials with a supplier who had earlier supplied the same items to
the agency since publication and posting of another IAEB would only
be a futile exercise;
2. The team overlooked the provisions of Annex “H” of the Revised
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA No. 9184, which
authorizes the national government agencies (NGAs) to procure goods
without public bidding not exceeding P500,000.00. The audit
disallowances for the procurements not exceeding P500,000.00 are
obviously inconsistent with the IRR;

3. The lack of public bidding is not sufficient to disallow the whole

transaction since it was not shown that the government was prejudiced
by the lack of bidding. There was no indication that had there been
public bidding, the government could have obtained a more favorable
contract price. There was also no finding that the
contracts orprocurement were overpriced;

4. The lack of public bidding did not diminish the right of the suppliers to
collect the contract price of goods delivered. Neither did it relieve the
government of its contractual obligation to pay for the goods delivered;

5. The violation of relevant laws, rules and regulations covering public

bidding, budget appropriations and release of funds for the projects
does not bar the entitlement of the contractor to compensation,
citing Eslao vs. COA, 12 where the Supreme Court (SC) lifted and
reversed the ND on the cost of construction of two buildings
undertaken by the Pangasinan State University for its failure to
undertake public bidding and comply with the requirements of a
negotiated procurement;

6. The SAT conducted the audit years after the construction materials
were delivered. Hence, the items no longer exist as they were already
utilized or used for the construction of the buildings and maintenance
of roads;

7. The construction materials were purchased for specific purpose. The

documents to support the transaction stated the nature of the project
and its location;

8. The absence of an invoice or OR is not by itself an indication that the

transactions were doubtful. The SAT should have required the
submission of the supposed lacking documents and then confirmed the
transactions through other audit procedures before declaring the
transactions doubtful;
9. The improperly accomplished PRs, POs, RISs, and IARs did not
warrant the issuance of audit disallowance. Although improperly
accomplished, they do not render the transactions
anomalous or irregular;

10. Although the identities of the persons who inspected and accepted the
construction materials are not readily identifiable, the same did not
make the inspection and acceptance report irregular or anomalous;

11. The failure of the suppliers to respond to the SAT’s request for
confirmation should not be a basis to disallow the transactions. Failure
to respond to the request cannot be construed as denial or abjuration of
the transactions;

12. The alleged deficiencies in the OR issued by the suppliers did not
make the documentation of the transaction spurious. As regards their
purported failure to properly report their income to the BIR and the
local government units, and timely secure Authority to Print invoices
and receipts, and the alleged encashment by a single person are beyond
the jurisdiction of the DPWH officials. They cannot be held
accountable for the suppliers’ failure to faithfully comply with the BIR
regulations;

13. The audit conducted was incomplete because the team failed to
conduct a physical inspection of the infrastructure projects. Without
such inspection, the audit engagement is far from being complete,
accurate and trustworthy;

14. The disbursement vouchers and the supporting documents were pre-
audited by the auditor before the suppliers were paid. This dispels the
SAT’s observation that the disbursements were supported
with spurious documents;

15. Sustaining the disallowance and imputing as personal liability of the

petitioner constitute unjust enrichment in favor of the government; and

16. As then Regional Secretary-Designate of the DPWH-ARMM, his

approval was only ministerial and that he only signed the documents
after his subordinates had reviewed and affixed their signatures. Citing
the case of Albert vs. Gangan , 13 Macadangdang vs.
Sandiganbayan , 14 and Arias vs. Sandiganbayan , 15 he cannot be held
 personally liable for the disallowances simply because he was the final
approving authority.

In her Answer 16 filed on July 16, 2013, the Director, SAO, stated that the Petition
for Review should be denied as it failed to present new arguments to warrant the
reversal of the assailed SAO decision.

ISSUE

The issue to be resolved is whether or not the Petition for Review is impressed
with merit.

DISCUSSION

After a circumspect evaluation, this Commission finds the petition bereft of

merit.

A competitive public bidding aims to protect the public interest by giving the
public the best possible advantages through open competition. 17 Another self-evident
purpose of public bidding is to avoid or preclude suspicion of favoritism and anomalies
in the execution of public contracts. 18 In Manila International Authority vs. Olongapo
Maintenance Services, Inc. , 19 the SC explained the rationale behind the requirement of
public bidding, as follows:

The rationale behind the requirement of a public bidding, as a mode of

awarding government contracts, is to ensure that the people get maximum
benefits and quality services from the contracts. More significantly, the
strict compliance with the requirements of a public bidding echoes the call
for transparency in government transactions and accountability of public
officers. Public biddings are intended to minimize occasions for
corruption and temptations to abuse of discretion on the part of
government authorities in awarding contracts.

In this case, petitioner admitted that there was no public bidding conducted.
However, he justified that they substantially complied with the pertinent provisions of
RA No. 9184 considering that the resort to negotiated procurement was made upon the
absence of contractors who responded to the IAEB and in order to avoid further delay.

This is misplaced.
 Section 53 of the IRR Part A of RA No. 9184 laid down the instances when a
procuring entity can directly negotiate a contract. Pertinent portions of the provision
read, as follows:

Negotiated Procurement is a method of procurement of goods,

infrastructure projects and consulting services, whereby the procuring
entity directly negotiates a contract with a technically, legally and
financially capable supplier, contractor or consultant only in the
following cases:

a. Where there has been failure of public bidding for the second
time as provided in Section 35 of the Act and this IRR-A;

b. In case of imminent danger to life or property during a state of

calamity, or when time is of the essence arising from
natural or man-made calamities or other causes where immediate
action is necessary to prevent damage to or loss of life
property, or to restore vital public services, infrastructure
facilities and other public utilities; xxx

c. Take-over of contracts, which have been rescinded or terminated

for causes provided for in the contract and existing laws, where
immediate action is necessary to prevent damage to or loss of
life or property, or to restore vital public services, infrastructure
facilities and other public utilities;

xxx

Section 35 of the same IRR provides, in part:

Section 35. Failure of Bidding

35.1 The BAC shall declare the bidding a failure and conduct a re-
bidding with re-advertisement and/or posting, as provided for in
Section 21 of the Act and this IRR, after a re-evaluation of the
terms, conditions and specifications of the first bidding, when:

a. No prospective bidder submits an LOI [Letter of Intent] or no

bids are received;
 b. All prospective bidders are declared ineligible;

c. All bids fail to comply with all the bid requirements or fail
post-qualification, or, in the case of consulting services, there is
no successful negotiation; or

d. The bidder with the Lowest Calculated Responsive Bid/

Highest Rated Responsive Bid refuses, without justifiable cause
to accept the award of contract, and no award is made in
accordance with Section 40 of the Act and this IRR-A.

xxx

35.3 Should there occur a second failure of bidding, the procuring entity
concerned may enter into a negotiated procurement, as provided
for in Section 53 of the Act and this IRR-A.

Applying the foregoing provisions, the resort to negotiated procurement in this

case was not valid. As can be gleaned from the records, they merely alleged that no one
had responded to the IAEB; hence, there occurred a failed bidding. Granting that there
was a failure of bidding, they should have conducted a re-bidding pursuant to the afore-
quoted Section 35. If such re-bidding fails, it is only then that the procuring entity
concerned may enter into a negotiated procurement. Likewise, there was no evidence
showing that any of the other instances enumerated under Section 53 of the IRR Part A
of RA No. 9184 was present that would justify the resort to negotiated procurement.

Section 21.1 20 of the IRR Part A of RA No. 9184 was not complied with. The
subject IAEB 21 did not contain the following:

1. The name and location of the contract to be bid, the project

background and other relevant information regarding the proposed
contract works, including a brief description of the type, size, major
items, and other important or relevant features of the works;

2. A general statement on the criteria to be used by the procuring entity

for the eligibility check, the short listing of prospective bidders;

3. The source of funding;

4. The period of availability and price of the bidding documents;

 5. The contract duration of delivery schedule; and

6. The names, address, telephone number, facsimile number, email, and

website addresses, if any, of the concerned entity, as well as its
designated contact person.

The IAEB merely: (1) indicated the date, time, and place of the submission of
eligibility requirements and issuance of bid document, pre-bid conference, and deadline
for the submission of bids and opening of bids; (2) enumerated the items to be procured
with indicated quantities but without specifications as to size and thickness; and (3)
specified the approved budget for the contract. The above-enumerated items required by
Section 21.1 of the IRR-A were not included in the published IAEB.

Besides, as aptly discussed in the SAO Decision, the Mindanao Gold Star Daily
cannot be considered as a newspaper of nationwide circulation as required under
21.2.1.a 22 of the IRR Part A of RA No. 9184. The Affidavit of Publication of the
Publisher stated that the newspaper was only of general circulation in Mindanao.
Likewise, there was no evidence that the required continuous posting 23 in the PhilGEPS,
website of the procuring entity and in conspicuous places reserved for the purpose in the
premises of the procuring entity was complied with.

The subject purchases were disallowed not only for violation of RA No. 9184 but
also because of the patent irregularity of the purchases. The results of the audit showed
that the construction materials were procured for no specific purpose and could not be
accounted for, the project sites were not indicated in any of the documents submitted,
and there were even no project documents such as plans and specification, program of
work and certificate of project completion for any project accomplished out of such
materials. The irregularities of the transactions were also manifested by the absence of
ORs, the incompletely filled-up PRs, POs, RISs, and IARs, and the unidentified persons
who accepted and inspected the materials. Likewise, the results of the confirmation
validating the transactions with the suppliers proved futile, and the confirmation with
the other government agencies revealed the incapacity of the contractor to supply the
materials based on their reported gross sales vis-à-vis the total amount contracted with
the DPWH-ARMM. All of these circumstances indicate the irregularities of the
transactions.

This Commission adheres to the basic requirement for the payment out of
government funds under Section 4(6) of Presidential Decree No. 1445, 24 which provides
that:
 Claims against government funds shall be supported with complete
documentation.

Also, Section 168 (c) of the Government Accounting and Auditing Manual,
Volume I, expressly provides:

Section 168. Basic requirements applicable to all classes of disbursements

– The following basic requirements applicable to all classes
of disbursements shall be complied with:

xxx

c. Documents to establish validity of claim – Submission of

documents and other evidences to establish the validity and
correctness of the claim for payment.

It is incumbent upon the petitioner to present evidence to prove the propriety of

the transactions. Nonetheless, during the audit and even in this petition, petitioner failed
to submit the required and accurate documents evidencing the propriety of the
purchases.

Petitioner’s allegation that the transactions were already passed in pre- audit by
the Auditor, DPWH-ARMM is misplaced. As provided under Item 8.2 of COA Circular
No. 2009-002 25 dated May 18, 2009, a pre-audit action shall not be a bar to further
determination as to the approval or allowance of the transaction in post audit.
Besides, t his Commission is not estopped from correcting the previous acts of its
personnel especially that there were patent irregularities in the transactions. Well-settled
is the principle that estoppel does not lie against the government, more so if they are
erroneous, let alone irregular. 26 Estoppel cannot give validity to an act that is prohibited
by law or is against public policy. 27

As to the petitioner’s request for exclusion from liability based on

the Arias doctrine, this Commission is not convinced. In the case of Alejandro C. Rivera
vs. People of the Philippines , 28 the Supreme Court held that:

To clarify, the Arias doctrine is not an absolute rule. It is not a magic

cloak that can be used as a cover by a public officer to conceal himself in
the shadows of his subordinates and necessarily escape liability. Thus, this
ruling cannot be applied to exculpate the petitioners in view of the
peculiar circumstances in this case which should have prompted them, as
 heads of offices, to exercise a higher degree of circumspection and,
necessarily, go beyond what their subordinates had prepared.

In this case, the non-compliance with the provisions of RA No. 9184 and the
irregularities in the supporting documents were so apparent and significant to escape
petitioner’s attention. The Arias doctrine cannot be used as an excuse from not
observing diligence and prudence in the exercise of his functions.

The official function of the petitioner and his participation in the disallowed
transactions are by no means to be treated as ministerial duties. His position carries a
certain degree of responsibility which should be carried out faithfully to put in place the
necessary controls to ensure the processing and completion of transactions in
accordance with applicable laws and regulations. Ruling Case Law (RCL) Vol. 22, page
461, states:

Every public officer is bound to perform the duties of his office

faithfully and to use reasonable skill and diligence and to act primarily
for the benefit of the public. In other words he is
bound, virtute officii , to bring to the discharge of his duties that
prudence, caution and attention which careful men usually exercise in
the management of their own affairs.

Allowing him to completely rely on the works of his subordinates or co-workers

where his function necessarily calls for a review of their output or accomplishments will
defeat the very purpose of his position and the duty of his office. It is incumbent upon
superior officers to see to it that their subordinates perform their functions properly.
Otherwise, they will be faulted of neglect of duty, as held in the case of Office of the
Court Administrator vs. Paredes : 29

x x x, the trust he reposed on his subordinate was not a valid defense. It

was his duty to see to it that his subordinates performed their functions
properly. These incidents clearly proved his neglect of duty.

Accordingly, Mr. Sumagayan should have checked the propriety of the purchases
and the accuracy and completeness of the supporting documents prepared by his
subordinates before he signed the POs, DVs, PRs, and RISs. Evidently, Mr. Sumagayan
was liable for his failure to exercise the diligence required of an approving officer, as
provided under Section 16.1.3 of the 2009 Rules and Regulations on Settlement of
Accounts , 30 to wit:
 Public officers who approve or authorize expenditures shall be liable for
losses arising out of their negligence or failure to exercise the diligence
of a good father of a family.

RULING

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the Petition for Review, with request for
exclusion from liability, of Mr. Titingalangit C. Sumagayan, District Engineer,
Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), Lanao del Sur 1 st Engineering
District, is hereby DENIED . Accordingly, Commission on Audit Special Audit Office
(SAO) Decision No. 2013-003 dated May 23, 2013, which affirmed SAO Notice of
Disallowance (ND) Nos. DPWH-11-001-101-(09), DPWH-11-002-101-(08 & 09),
DPWH-11-004-101-(08 & 09), and DPWH-11-005-101-(08 & 09), all dated August 26,
2011, on the procurement of construction materials, in the total amount of
P357,125,626.82, is AFFIRMED . Mr. Sumagayan remains liable in the NDs in the
total amount of P5,120,115.00.

(SGD.) MICHAEL G. AGUINALDO

Chairperson

(SGD.) JOSE A. FABIA (SGD.) ISABEL D.

Commissioner AGITOCommissioner

Attested by:

(SGD.) NILDA B. PLARAS

Director IV
Commission Secretariat

Copy furnished:

Mr. Titingalangit C. Sumagayan

District Engineer
1 st Engineering District
Department of Public Works and Highways
Lanao del Sur

The Regional Director

Department of Public Works and Highways
Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao
Cotabato City

The Director
Special Audit Office
Special Services Sector

The Director
Information Technology Office
Systems and Technical Services Sector

The Assistant Commissioners

National Government Sector
Commission Proper Adjudication and
Secretariat Support Services Sector

All of this Commission

ESZ/EGAT/EEL/JISL/MCZ
OGC-2013-8-23-17164
CAO NGS 055
National D

1 Pursuant to Section 1, Rule VII of the 2009 Revised Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Audit.
2 As indicated in the Facts portion of the Appeal Memorandum, rollo , p. 20.
3 As indicated in the receiving stamp of the Appeal Memorandum, rollo , p. 17.
4 As indicated in the Nature of the Petition portion of the Petition for Review, rollo , p. 80.
5 As indicated in the receiving stamp of the Petition for Review, rollo, p. 80.
6 Section 3. Period of Appeal, Rule VII of the 2009 Revised Rules of Procedure of the Commission on
Audit states:
The appeal shall be taken within the time remaining of the six (6) months period under Section 4, Rule
V, taking into account the suspension of the running thereof under Section 5 of the same Rule in case
of appeals from the Director’s decision, or under Sections 9 and 10 of Rule VI in case of decision of
the ASB.
7 Rollo , pp. 11-12.
8 Government Procurement Reform Act.
9 Rollo , pp. 17-31.
10 Rollo , pp. 68-77.
11 Rollo , pp. 80-96.
12 G.R. No. 108310, September 1, 1994.
13 G.R. No. 126557, March 6, 2001.
14 G.R. Nos. 75440-43, February 14, 1989.
15 G.R. No. 81563, December 19, 1989.
16 Rollo , pp. 6-10.
17 Ruby P. Lagoc vs. Maria Elena Malaga, et al. , G.R. No. 184785, July 9, 2014.
18 Ibid., citing Danville Maritime, Inc. vs. Commission on Audit, 256 Phil. 1092, 1103 (1989).
19 G.R. Nos. 146184-85, January 31, 2008.
20 Section 21. 1. Contents of the Invitation to Apply for Eligibility and to Bid.
The Invitation to Apply for Eligibility and to Bid shall provide prospective bidders the following information,
among others:
1. For the procurement of:
a) Goods, the name of the contract to be bid and a brief description of the goods to be procured;
b) Infrastructure projects, the name and location of the contract to be bid, the project background and
other relevant information regarding the proposed contract works, including a brief description of
the type, size, major items, and other important or relevant features of the works; and
c) Consulting services, the name of the contract to be bid, a general description of the project and
other important or relevant information.
2. A general statement on the criteria to be used by the procuring entity for the eligibility check, the short
listing of prospective bidders, in the case of the procurement of consulting services, the examination
and evaluation of bids, and post-qualification;
3. The date, time and place of the deadline for the submission and receipt of the eligibility requirements,
the pre-bid conference if any, the submission and receipt of bids, and the opening of bids;
4. The approved budget for the contract to be bid;
5. The source of funding;
6. The period of availability of the bidding documents, the place where the bidding documents may be
secured and, where applicable, the price of the bidding documents;
7. The contract duration or delivery schedule;
8. The name, address, telephone number, facsimile number, e-mail and website addresses of the
concerned procuring entity, as well as its designated contact person; and
9. Such other necessary information deemed relevant by the procuring entity.
21 Rollo , p. 144.
22 21.2.1. a) Advertised at least once in one (1) newspaper of general nationwide circulation which has been
regularly published for at least two (2) years before the date of issue of the advertisement;
23 21.2.1.b) Posted continuously in the website of the procuring entity concerned, if available, the website of the
procuring entity’s service provider, if any, as provided in Section 8 of this IRR-A, and the G-EPS for
seven (7) calendar days starting on date of advertisement, if applicable; and
21.2.1.c) Posted at any conspicuous place reserved for this purpose in the premises of the procuring entity
concerned for seven (7) calendar days, if applicable, as certified by the head of the BAC Secretariat of
the procuring entity concerned.
24 Government Auditing Code of the Philippines.
25 Reinstituting Selective Pre-Audit on Government Transactions.
26 Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Commission on Audit , G.R. No. L-107016, March 11, 1994.
27 Benguet Consolidated etc. vs. Pineda etc ., G.R. No. L-7231, March 28, 1956; Eugenio v. Perdido , G.R. No.
L-7083, May 19, 1955.
28 G.R. No. 156577, December 3, 2014.
29 A.M. P06-2103, April 17, 2007.
30 Commission on Audit Circular No. 2009-006 dated September 15, 2009.