RGCCI V. DPWH G.R. NO. 231015, JANUARY 26, 2021
RGCCI V. DPWH
G.R. NO. 231015, JANUARY 26, 2021
TOPIC/DOCTRINE
The mere absence of these documents
would not necessarily rule out the possibility of the contractor receiving
payment for the services rendered for the government.
FACTS
Sometime in June 1991, Mount Pinatubo erupted generating several meters of volcanic ash which crippled the areas of Pampanga, Zambales, and Tarlac. DPWH Pampanga entered into various contracts with RGCCI for the lease of equipment for the maintenance and restoration of parts of the Porac-Gumain Diversion Channel System. The contracts entered into by RGCCI and the DPWH are the following:
1.
lease on one (1) unit of payloader 75B at the rental rate of P835.00 per hour
for a period of 60 days in the amount of P313,542.50 plus interest to be
counted from the date of last demand until full payment of the obligation;
2.
construction of a dike by bulldozing the Porac River, Ascomo-Pulunmasle,
Guagua, Pampanga from Sta. 0+580 to Sta. 1+500 for the total contract amount of
P2,113,470.84, where the remaining balance is P1,574,580.50; and
3.
the excavation of channel, pushing and diking of Gumain River, Floridablanca,
Pampanga, from Sta. 1+1000 to Sta. 1+750, amounting to P1,853,836.20.
RGCCI
sought the collection of all the unpaid amounts from the DPWH. However, despite
several demands, RGCCI's request remained unheeded. RGCCI filed separate claims
before the COA.
The DPWH claimed that the contracts were
null and void due to the fact that it is unauthorized and not supported with
complete documentation to be compliant with the requirements of the law. Among
others, it points to the lack of Certificate of Availability of Funds signed by
the proper accounting official which is an integral part of a contract pursuant
to Section 87 of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1445.
The COA decided to
deny the money claim. The COA reiterated that the claims against government
funds should be supported with complete documentation, such as Statement of
Work Accomplished, Inspection Report by the Agency's Authorized Engineer,
Statement of Time Elapsed, Pictures (before, during, and after construction of
items of work), and Photocopy of vouchers of all previous payments.
On the contrary, RGCCI presented
evidence to prove that it has performed its obligation under the contract.
For instance, in G.R. No. 231015, RGCCI was able to show
a copy of the Disbursement Voucher dated July 27, 1992 for the amount of
P313,542.50 intended as payment for the claim subject of the petition which was
signed by the Chief of the Maintenance Section of the DPWH Pampanga. In G.R. No. 249212, RGCCI was able to
provide a Certificate of Final Inspection dated June 22, 1992 which
certifies that the project was found to be 100% complete in accordance with
plans and specifications and was signed by at least six (6) officials of the
DPWH. Lastly, in G.R. No. 240618, RGCCI was able to show a Certificate of Project
Completion dated July 22, 1992. Furthermore, there was already a partial
payment of the contract price in the amount of P538,890.33 leaving a balance of
only P1,574,580.50 because of the lack of funds of the DPWH and alleged problem
in documentation despite the completion of the project.
ISSUE
Whether
RGCCI is entitled to payment on the basis of quantum meruit.
RULING
Yes,
The existence of the appropriation and certification as to the availability of funds together with the written contract is vital and necessary for the execution of government contracts. Nevertheless, the mere absence of these documents would not necessarily rule out the possibility of the contractor receiving payment for the services rendered for the government. In a long line of cases decided by this Court, it did not withhold the grant of compensation to a contractor notwithstanding the dearth of the necessary documents, provided the contractor substantially shows performance of the obligation under the contract. The Court reasoned that denial of the claim would be to allow the government to unjustly enrich itself at the expense of another.
Here, the court ruled that the evidence presented by RGCCI proves that it has performed its obligation under the contract. For instance, in G.R. No. 231015, RGCCI was able to show a copy of the Disbursement Voucher for the amount of P313,542.50 intended as payment for the claim subject of the petition. The voucher is concrete evidence that RGCCI has completed what has been required of it under the contract. In G.R. No. 249212, RGCCI was able to provide a Certificate of Final Inspection which certifies that the project was found to be 100% complete. Lastly, in G.R. No. 240618, RGCCI was able to show a Certificate of Project Completion. Furthermore, there was already a partial payment of the contract price in the amount of P538,890.33 leaving a balance of only P1,574,580.50 because of the lack of funds of the DPWH and alleged problem in documentation despite the completion of the project. The payment of the DPWH, albeit partial, shows that there was indeed construction work done by RGCCI.
