THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 236211. February 19, 2018.]
AMADO ELSON A. EGARGUE AND RODANTE A. TOLENTINO, petitioners, vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, GERARDO A. NOVERAS, SIMEON A. DE CASTRO, ET AL., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedFebruary 19, 2018, which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 236211 (Amado Elson A. Egargue and Rodante A. Tolentino vs. Office of the Ombudsman, Gerardo A. Noveras, Simeon A. De Castro, et al.). — The Court DIRECTS the parties or their respective counsel to INDICATE their contact details in all papers and pleadings to be filed with this Court pursuant to A.M. No. 07-6-5-SC (En Banc Resolution dated July 10, 2007).
This is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court questioning the Joint Resolution dated July 14, 2016 of the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) in OMB-L-C-16-0071/OMB-L-A-16-0076 as well as its Order dated September 8, 2017 denying reconsideration thereof.
The case at bar involves a complaint for violation of Section 3 (e) and (g) of Republic Act No. 3029 (RA 3019), Dishonesty, Grave Abuse of Authority, Grave Misconduct and Gross Neglect of Duty filed on January 25, 2016 by herein petitioners Amado Elson A. Egargue (Egargue) and Rodante A. Tolentino (Tolentino) against herein respondents:
Gerardo A. Noveras (Noveras), Chairman, Bids and Awards Committee (BAC);
Simeon A. De Castro (De Castro), Provincial Administrator;
BAC Members:
Paz L. Torregosa (Torregosa), Provincial Legal Officer;
Ricardo Q. Bautista (Bautista), Provincial General Services Officer;
Benedicto S. Rojo (Rojo), Assistant Provincial Engineer;
Isaias A. Noveras, Jr. (Noveras), Executive Assistant;
Norma R. Clemente (Clemente), Provincial Budget Officer;
Norberto Herminigildo (Herminigildo), Provincial Treasurer;
Alfredo E. Penzon (Penzon), Head, BAC Technical Working Group (TWG);
Joel D. Friginal (Friginal), Supply Officer III and Member of the TWG; and
Cornelio P. Ancheta, Jr. (Ancheta), Provincial Equipment Pool Officer,
all of the Provincial Capitol of Aurora, Brgy. Suklayin, Baler, Aurora.
Sometime in December 2013, respondent Governor Noveras approved the procurement of one brand new unit wheel loader charged to the Development Fund of the Province of Aurora through a Purchase Request (PR) signed by Ancheta. The subject procurement was through negotiated purchase upon the recommendation of the BAC through Resolution No. FBG 13-02 dated November 26, 2013, because there had been two (2) failed biddings prior thereto.
They proceeded to post invitations for Negotiated Procurement of Heavy Equipment in the Philippine Government Electronic Procurement Systems (PhilGEPS), in a newspaper of general circulation and in conspicuous places within the premises of the Province. There were three (3) suppliers who were invited and engaged in negotiation, namely: Civic Merchandising, Inc., Monark Equipment, and Maxima Machineries, Inc. (Maxima, Inc.). 1
After evaluation, the BAC-TWG found the offer of Maxima, Inc. as the most advantageous to the Province. The BAC thus declared Maxima, Inc.'s offer as the lowest calculated and responsive bid through Resolution No. NPG 14-001 and recommended its approval to Gov. Noveras. 2
Eventually, Maxima, Inc., the exclusive distributor of construction and mining equipment of Komatsu Ltd., was declared as the winning bidder.
Proceeding with the purchase, Gov. Noveras was authorized by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) of Aurora through Resolution No. 28 dated April 8, 2014, to open a letter of credit with the DBP. In July 2014, he opened an Import Letter of Credit pursuant to the said authority. In the process, Gov. Noveras issued an Authority to Debit in favor of the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), authorizing said bank to debit the amount of Php8,555,587.27 from the Provincial Government of Aurora's account. Said amount serves as payment for the brand new Wheel Loader Komatsu WA380Z-6 purchased from Marubeni Corporation (Marubeni Corp.), a Japanese company. 3
A Komatsu WA380Z arrived in the Philippines in the last quarter of 2014 and was inspected by respondents Rojo, Penzon, and Ancheta on November 11, 2014. It was once again inspected by respondents Bautista and Friginal when it arrived in the province. 4 CAIHTE
The Commission on Audit (COA) issued an Audit Observation Memorandum (AOM) dated January 27, 2015 citing errors in the procurement and directed Gov. Noveras to comment thereon. More than a year later, or on October 3, 2016, the COA issued a Notice of Disallowance for failure on the part of respondents to fully comply with the requirements of the Commission. 5
The Complaint
Petitioners, in their Complaint-Affidavit, question the manner in which respondents proceeded with the procurement, arguing that the Authority to Debit issued is beyond the ambit of the authority to open an Import Letter of Credit given by the SP.
As regards the payment to Marubeni Corp., petitioners aver that said payment was made prior to the delivery of the wheel loader, and the charges for said transaction, including duties and taxes such as VAT amounting to Php59,107.07, were shouldered by the Province. Too, it was made to Marubeni Corp, and not to Maxima, Inc. to whom the contract was awarded. 6
Petitioners further claim that what was delivered to the province was KOMATSU WA380Z, instead of the WA380Z-6 for which was the model paid. They also insist that the price of that delivered is lower than the price of the one procured and that there was an advance payment since authority to debit was issued on July 2, 2014, way ahead of the inspection conducted on November 10, 2014. 7
They also posit that in order to cover up the alleged illegal expenditures, Gov. Noveras and Clemente issued two (2) different Obligation Requests on December 17, 2014 charging said purchase to the Development Fund of Aurora. 8
Petitioners further claim that the Php10,000,000.00 budget used for the subject purchase was supposed to be allocated for the procurement of Transport, Light, and Heavy Equipment, but the Purchase Requests were only for the purchase of one (1) heavy equipment without the Transport and Light Equipment. 9
Additionally, they argue that Gov. Noveras executed a Deed of Undertaking but failed to avail of exemption from payment of taxes and duties from the Department of Finance. 10
In his Facebook account, Gov. Noveras allegedly admitted his negligence. On September 16, 2015, the COA issued a Notice of Suspension suspending the amount of Php8,555,587.27 due to incomplete documentation. 11
Respondents' defense
In his Counter-Affidavit, Gov. Noveras denies the charges against him. He insists that petitioners were motivated by anger and grudge in filing the instant complaint. According to him, Egargue is serving his own one-year suspension ordered by public respondent Ombudsman following a complaint filed by Friginal, and is also facing disciplinary cases pending before the Civil Service Commission (CSC) Region III. As for Tolentino, several administrative cases against him are pending before the CSC and the Office of the Governor of Aurora. He was also preventively suspended twice per Gov. Noveras' orders. At that time, Tolentino was serving his second preventive suspension. 12
With respect to the procurement itself, Gov. Noveras affirms that he approved the procurement of the subject wheel loader through negotiated purchase upon the recommendation of the BAC through Resolution No. FBG 13-02 dated November 26, 2013; because there had been two (2) failed biddings, the procurement was awarded to Maxima, Inc. also upon the BAC's recommendation. 13 For this, he was allegedly authorized by the SP of Aurora through Resolution No. 28 dated April 8, 2014, to open a letter of credit with the DBP which paid for the imported item only upon presentation, among other documents, of the Acceptance and Inspection Report and the authority to debit/credit form. 14
He likewise explained that Maxima, Inc. is the exclusive distributor of construction and mining equipment of Komatsu Ltd. (Products) and is a subsidiary of Marubeni Corp. Gov. Noveras also stated that Maxima, Inc. offered to the province the wheel loader provided that it would directly import the same from its parent company, Marubeni Corp. 15
Anent the alleged variance in the model ordered and that delivered and received, Gov. Noveras averred that WA 380Z is not different from WA 380Z-6 as "WA380Z" written on the body pertains to the model and "-6" refers to the series. 16
Gov. Noveras adds that upon arrival of the unit, they prepared the disbursement voucher (DV) and other documents, including the questioned Obligation Request, but the Provincial Accounting Office refused to process the DV as the account was already debited by the bank; upon the advice of the Accounting Office, the first Obligation Request was cancelled and replaced by the second one, which was used to transfer funds from Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) to the DBP, the latter having been used in the letter of credit transaction; and the first Obligation request was never used in any disbursement. 17
He adds that Valenzuela, a close friend of Tolentino, was neither a BAC member nor an official custodian of BAC files. Too, Tolentino, who was a BAC member until November 2013, could have raised his question pertaining to the PR but he did not. Tolentino was also a signatory to BAC Resolution No. FBG-13-10 dated November 4, 2013 declaring failure of bidding for the procurement of the wheel loader, and in the process, agreed to the amount of Php9,000,000.00 indicated thereon. 18
Gov. Noveras also clarifies that the Authority to Debit was one of the requirements needed before the Letter of Credit can be opened. The authority given to him by the SP to open a Letter of Credit carried with it the authority to debit. The issuance of the authority to debit is not tantamount to advance payment as it only implies that he authorized the DBP to pay the supplier upon its submission of the AIR. Too, the importation was tax free. 19 DETACa
Gov. Noveras further posits that the questioned transaction was advantageous to the government. The amount allocated for the procurement was Php10,000,000.00 while he approved the same for Php9,000,000.00 but the Province paid Php8,555,587.27 only, resulting in savings. He also maintains that the complaint is premature as the COA has yet to rule whether public funds were indeed illegally spent in the procurement. 20
As for respondents de Castro, Bautista, Torregosa, Rojo, Noveras, Jr., Clemente, and Penzon, they reiterate in their Joint Counter-Affidavit that Gov. Noveras' claim that the filing of the complaint against them was done with ill-motive. 21
For his part, private respondent Ancheta denies that he connived or conspired with his co-respondents in the alleged irregular procurement. According to him, his primary responsibility was to facilitate the preparation and approval of the PR indicating the complete specifications of the requested unit, wait for its delivery, and conduct actual inspection before its acceptance and general utilization. 22
With respect to the unit itself, he maintains that upon inspection, they found it to have conformed to and complied with the technical specifications. Also, Ancheta avers that, as claimed by Gov. Noveras, WA380Z is not different from WA380-Z-6 since the former is the model imprinted on the body while the latter part refers to the series as embossed in the brass plate located in the unit's lower portion. Too, both have the same price. 23
Private respondent Friginal also denies liability and states that he was not a signatory to the Acceptance and Inspection Report (AIR) as he was not authorized to do so. According to him, his office, the Provincial General Services Office (PGSO), prepares the required documents such as the AIR, Property Issue Slips (PIS), Acknowledgment Receipt of Equipment (ARE) and similar documents pertaining to the issuance of a property. Moreover, their office only accepts delivered items according to quantity — whether the delivery is complete or not — and is still subject for inspection to determine compliance with and conformity to the technical specifications and descriptions. 24 Said deliveries are also subject to inspection by the Provincial Accounting Office and the end-user to determine if they are in conformity to the specifications prescribed. He also affirms that WA380Z-6 is an upgraded model of WA380Z. 25
Friginal also insists that the complaint was filed as an act of revenge since he filed a complaint against Egargue for Simple Dishonesty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service for which he was meted a penalty of one (1) year suspension. As for Tolentino, he was also suspended from office twice due to various administrative offenses filed before the CSC and the Provincial Government of Aurora. Too, Egargue and Tolentino were selective in filing the instant complaint since they excluded therefrom Provincial Accountant Wilfredo C. Saturno who was the one found to have failed to comply with the documents required in the AOM and Notice of Suspension issued by the COA. 26
Friginal further claims that the documents attached by petitioners in the complaint were illegally obtained since Administrative Assistant II Crisante G. Valenzuela of the Provincial Engineering Office who issued the certified true copies of the documents was not authorized to do so. 27
After submission of their respective position papers, the Ombudsman rendered the assailed Joint Resolution dismissing the complaint for lack of merit. 28
Decision of the Ombudsman
The Ombudsman found no probable cause to indict respondents for violation of RA 3019 for lack of proof that the questioned procurement caused undue injury to the government or to any party, or that it was manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government. It likewise found no substantial evidence to hold respondents administratively liable for Grave Abuse of Authority, Grave Misconduct, and Gross Neglect of Duty. 29
The Ombudsman found that respondents were able to refute the allegations against them. It held that Gov. Noveras satisfactorily proved that his authority from the SP to open the Import Letter of Credit necessarily carried with it the authority to debit the full amount of the purchase price upon presentation and submission of the required supporting documents. Furthermore, the purchase price of Php8,555,587.27 was beneficial to the government as it not only secured savings for the latter but is also markedly lower than the Php11,200,000.00 offer of the other supplier, Monark Equipment, the amount of which is way beyond the Approved Budget for the Contract (ABC). 30 aDSIHc
The Ombudsman also gave credence to the explanation that what was delivered was an upgraded model, but with the same price and technical description as the one ordered, and the "6" affixed in the model of the delivered unit refers to its series. Further, and more importantly, the Ombudsman noted that petitioners failed to prove that the delivered equipment did not conform to the technical specification/description of the procuring entity. 31
As regards the argument that Maxima, Inc. is Marubeni Corp.'s subsidiary, the Ombudsman found such to be true. 32
As for resorting to negotiated procurement, the Ombudsman found that such was valid in view of the two (2) failed biddings, applying Section 53 of RA 9184 or the Government Procurement Reform Act (GPRA). 33
With respect to the allegation that the PR refers only to heavy equipment when the budget was intended for transport, light and heavy equipment, the Ombudsman ruled that the ABC for the subject heavy equipment is only Php9,000,000.00, leaving Php1,000,000.00 for the other items covered by the said budget. 34
Lastly, the Ombudsman held that there was no advance payment contrary to petitioners' allegations since the DBP, in its Notice of Arrival of Documents, notified the Provincial Government of Aurora "to submit duly signed Inspection and Acceptance Report as required under R.A. 9184 as amended. No payment shall be made under the [Letter of Credit] unless said document is submitted to us."35 This, according to the Ombudsman, is a clear indication that there was in fact no advance payment as the DBP waited for the AIR which could only be accomplished upon delivery of the unit procured. 36
With these, the Ombudsman disposed of the complaint in this wise:
WHEREFORE, the complaint filed against GERARDO A. NOVERAS, SIMEON A. DE CASTRO, PAZ L. TORREGOSA, RICARDO Q. BAUTISTA, BENEDICTO S. ROJO, ISAIAS A. NOVERAS, JR., NORMA R. CLEMENTE, NORBERTO HERMINIGILDO, ALFREDO E. PENZON, JOEL D. FRIGINAL, AND CORNELIO P. ANCHETA, JR. is hereby dismissed for lack of merit,
SO ORDERED.37
Their Motion for Reconsideration having been denied, 38 petitioners seek recourse from this Court via the instant petition, raising the following errors, to wit:
THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT DISMISSED THE CHARGES AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS.
THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT DENIED THE PETITIONERS' MOTION OF RECONSIDERATION.
Petitioners insist that respondents conspired and confederated with one another in committing graft and corrupt practices by lying and deceiving the public and the government in spending public funds, making it appear that the purchase actually complied with all legal requirements. 39
They highlight the fact that the payment was made to Marubeni Corp., even though it was Maxima, Inc. that was awarded the contract. They claim that respondents were not able to substantiate their claim that Maxima, Inc. is indeed Marubeni, Corp.'s subsidiary. 40
They likewise reiterate that the wheel loader delivered had inferior specifications than that procured. 41 Too, they insist that contrary to the Ombudsman's ruling, Gov. Noveras' authority was only limited to the opening of a Letter of Credit, which authority did not include the authority to debit the purchase price. 42
Petitioners also stressed that the Php10,000,000.00 budget was for the Provincial Engineering Office but it was the Provincial Equipment Pool Office that made the request. Too, according to them, Gov. Noveras reneged on his duty to secure a Certificate of Exemption from Payment of Taxes and Duties from the Department of Finance, as contained in his Deed of Undertaking. 43
Finally, petitioners maintain that per COA AOM, the Commission found that the procurement was irregular due to incomplete documentation. 44 ETHIDa
We dismiss the petition.
In certiorari proceedings under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the inquiry is limited essentially to whether or not the public respondent acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. 45
Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. In other words, the exercise of power is in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility. It must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. 46
A tribunal, board or officer acts without jurisdiction if it/he does not have the legal power to determine the case. There is excess of jurisdiction where, being clothed with the power to determine the case, the tribunal, board or officer oversteps its/his authority as determined by law. 47
Here, We find no error on the part of respondent Ombudsman in dismissing the complaint against respondent public officials. In addressing the issues presented before it, the Ombudsman did not err in resolving such in favor of respondents.
Respondents were charged for violation of Section 3 (e) and (g) of RA 3019. Said provisions read:
Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. — In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
xxx xxx xxx
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.
xxx xxx xxx
(g) Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any contract or transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the public officer profited or will profit thereby.
The following are the essential elements of violation of Sec. 3 (e) of RA 3019:
1. The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions;
2. He must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or inexcusable negligence; and
3. That his action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, or giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions. 48 (emphasis ours)
As for Section 3 (g) of the same law, the elements thereof are:
1. that the accused is a public officer;
2. that he entered into a contract or transaction on behalf of the government; and
3. that such contract or transaction is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government.49 [emphasis ours]
In the assailed Joint Resolution, the Ombudsman ruled that no undue injury was caused to any party, including the government, or giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions. It also held that petitioners failed to show that respondents acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or inexcusable negligence. The Ombudsman likewise found that the contract was not disadvantageous to the government.
We agree.
Sec. 53 of the GPRA provides that Negotiated Procurement shall be in cases of two failed biddings, as provided in Section 35 50 of said law. Here, the fact that there were two (2) failed biddings was never questioned by petitioners. Thus, resort to negotiated procurement was legal and justified under the circumstances. cSEDTC
With respect to the cost of the purchase, We agree with the Ombudsman's finding that the purchase price of Php8,555,587.27 is beneficial to the government. Petitioners failed to show that the cost of the subject procurement is incorrect or that the government should have paid less than the price agreed upon. Indeed, as held by the Ombudsman, said purchase price even secured savings for the Province and is, without a doubt, lower than the Php11,200,000.00 offer of Monark Equipment, which amount is way beyond the ABC. We, therefore, find no irregularity with respect to the cost.
As for the alleged advance payment, the Court agrees with the Ombudsman that there was no advance payment. Other than the allegation that authority to debit was issued on July 2, 2014, way ahead of the inspection conducted on November 10, 2014, which supposedly makes it an advance payment to Marubeni Corp., there is nothing to support the proposition that there was indeed an advance payment. This conclusion is supported by the DBP's Notice of Arrival of Documents, which in part states that "[n]o payment shall be made under the [Letter of Credit] unless said document [duly signed Inspection and Acceptance Report required under R.A. 9184 as amended] is submitted to us."51 (Words in brackets ours) Too, there is no evidence showing that Marubeni Corp. received the payment for the equipment before such was delivered to the Province.
Anent the defense that Maxima, Inc. is Marubeni Corp.'s subsidiary, the Ombudsman found such to be true. 52 Indeed, a simple verification thereof in the company website readily reveals that Maxima, Inc. is a subsidiary of Marubeni Corp. 53
This Court also finds that the Ombudsman properly gave credence to the explanation that what was delivered was an upgraded model, but with the same price and technical description as the one ordered, and the "6" affixed in the model of the delivered unit refers to its series. 54 A simple allegation that WA380Z specified in the procurement is different from WA380Z-6, the unit delivered, is not enough to prove that the Province received an item different from what it procured. He who alleges must prove. 55 As correctly found by respondent Ombudsman, petitioners failed to substantiate their claim that the delivered equipment did not conform to the technical specification/description of the procuring entity. 56
Indeed, the function of determining what is sufficient evidence to establish probable cause is the job of the Office of the Ombudsman. 57 Except in cases when there is grave abuse of discretion in the exercise of its discretion, which is absent in the instant case, this Court has adopted a policy of non-interference in the exercise of the Ombudsman's constitutionally mandated powers on this matter. 58
Here, the Ombudsman committed no abuse of discretion which would warrant the exercise of this Court's jurisdiction under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Petitioners miserably failed to substantiate their allegation that respondents violated Sections 3 (e) and (g) of RA 3019, rightfully calling for the dismissal of the complaint filed.
With these, We need not belabor the other issues presented.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of CourtBy:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 25.
2.Id.
3.Id. at 28.
4.Id. at 22.
5.Id. at 56.
6.Id. at 22.
7.Id. at 28.
8.Id. at 22.
9.Id. at 28.
10.Id.
11.Id. at 23.
12.Id.
13.Id. at 23-24.
14.Id. at 24.
15.Id.
16.Id.
17.Id. at 24.
18.Id. at 28.
19.Id. at 29.
20.Id.
21.Id. at 25.
22.Id. at 26.
23.Id.
24.Id.
25.Id. at 27.
26.Id.
27.Id.
28. Id. at 29.
29. Id. at 32.
30. Id. at 30.
31. Id.
32. Id. at 31.
33. Id.
34. Id. at 31-32.
35. Id. at 32.
36. Id.
37. Id. at 32-33.
38. Id. at 37.
39. Id. at 10.
40. Id.
41. Id. at 10-11.
42. Id. at 11.
43. Id. at 12.
44. Id. at 14.
45. Brito v. Office of the Deputy Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 167335 & 167337, July 10, 2007, 527 SCRA 215, 229.
46. People v. Januario, 267 SCRA 608 [1997], cited in Perez, et al. v. Office of the Ombudsman, et al., G.R. No. 131445, May 27, 2004.
47. Brito v. Office of the Deputy Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 167335 & 167337, July 10, 2007, 527 SCRA 215, 229.
48. Cabrera v. Sandiganbayan, 484 Phil. 350, 360 (2004), citing Jacinto v. Sandiganbayan, 387 Phil. 872, 881 (2000).
49. Luciano v. Estrella, 145 Phil. 448 (1970); Ingco v. Sandiganbayan, 338 Phil. 1061 (1997); Dans, Jr. v. People, 349 Phil. 434 (1998).
50. SEC. 35. Failure of Bidding. — There shall be a failure of bidding if:
(a) No bids are received;
(b) No bid qualifies as the Lowest Calculated Responsive Bid or Highest Rated Responsive Bid; or,
(c) Whenever the bidder with the highest rated/lowest calculated responsive bid refuses, without justifiable cause to accept the award of contract, as the case may be.
Under any of the above instances, the contract shall be re-advertised and re-bid. The BAC shall observe the same process and set the new periods according to the same rules followed during the first bidding. After the second failed bidding, however, the BAC may resort to negotiated procurement as provided for in Section 53 of this Act.
51. Rollo, p. 32.
52. Id. at 31.
53. See <http://www.maxima.com.ph/>.
54. Rollo, p. 30.
55. Bejoc v. Cabreros, G.R. No. 145849, 22 July 2005, 464 SCRA 78, 86-87, cited in Morales v. Skills International Company, G.R. No. 149285, August 30, 2006, 500 SCRA 186, 197.
56.Rollo, p. 30.
57. Pontejos v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 158613-14, 22 February 2006, 483 SCRA 83, 92-93, cited in Brito v. Office of the Deputy Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 167335 & 167337, July 10, 2007, 527 SCRA 215, 231.
58. Villanueva v. Ople, G.R. No. 165125, 18 November 2005, 475 SCRA 539, 554, cited in Brito v. Office of the Deputy Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 167335 & 167337, July 10, 2007, 527 SCRA 215, 231.