In Re- Almacen

September 13, 2017 | Author: Lea Mora | Category: Supreme Courts, Procurement, Society, Social Institutions, Government Information
Share Embed Donate

Short Description

In Re- Almacen...


In Re: Almacen, 31 SCRA 562 19 JUL FACTS: Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen filed a “Petition to Surrender the Lawyer’s Certificate of Title” to the Supreme Court as a sign of his protest as against to what he call a tribunal “peopled by people who are calloused to our pleas for justice…”. He also expressed strong words as against the judiciary like “justice… is not only blind, but also deaf and dumb.” . The petition rooted from the case he lost due to the absence of time and place in his motion in the trial court. His appeal was dismissed in the Court of Appeals by reason of jurisprudence. In a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court, it was again dismissed thru a minute resolution. With the disappointments, he thought of this sacrificial move. He claimed that this petition to surrender his title is only in trust, and that he may obtain the title again as soon as he regained confidence in the justice system. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Almacen should be given disciplinary actions for his acts. HELD: YES. Indefinite suspension imposed. RATIO: It has been pointed out by the Supreme Court that there is no one to blame but Atty. Almacen himself because of his negligence. Even if the intentions of his accusations are so noble, in speaking of the truth and alleged injustices,so as not to condemn the sinners but the sin, it has already caused enough damage and disrepute to the judiciary. Since this particular case is sui generis in its nature, a number of foreign and local jurisprudence in analogous cases were cited as benchmarks and references. Between disbarment and suspension, the latter was imposed. Indefinite suspension may only be lifted until further orders, after Atty. Almacen may be able to prove that he is again fit to resume the practice of law.

In Re: Almacen, 31 SCRA 562 | 1

Approval of the Head of Procuring Entity on BAC Resolutions 20 JUL There is only one (1) categorical instance when it is the BAC that approves:  Subject to the approval of the BAC, a pre-bid conference may also be conducted upon written request of any prospective bidder. (Sec.22.1) In the second issue, the HOPE cannot be relieved of his/her accountability without altering the validity of the documents. Let us say for example where the BAC approves award in essence. Is the resolution valid? My answer is NO. If in the example the BAC approves in its resolution the Annual Procurement Plan (APP) or any of its amendments or supplements, is the resolution valid? Again it’s a NO. Following the principle expressio unius est exclusio alterius, where the express mention of one person, thing or consequence implies the exclusion of all others, there can be no substitute to the approving authority. Having mentioned that it is the HOPE, and not the BAC, the law clearly identified the person and function. Further, approval can never be from the BAC as it is fundamental that: In no case shall the Head of the Procuring Entity and/or the approving authority be the Chairman or a member of the BAC. (Sec.11.2.5) This further strengthens the fact that the BAC is merely recommendatory in nature. Finally, let us quote a recent GPPB issued opinion relevant on this matter: Number


NPM 34-2012



Delegation of Authority by the Bids and Awards Committee




Requesting Entity


Supreme Court- Office of the Court Administrator

Issues Concern


Delegation of Authority by the Bids and Awards Committee



Whether the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) for the Halls In Re: Almacen, 31 SCRA 562 | 2

of Justice of the Office of the Court Administrator may validly delegate its authority to a unit within the Supreme Court to handle Shopping and Small Value Procurement, specifically, on matters involving the Halls of Justice nationwide.  [T]he BAC for the Halls of Justice may validly delegate its authority to a unit within the Supreme Court to handle shopping and small value procurement specifically on matters involving the Halls of Justice. Please be reminded however, that the delegation of the conduct of shopping and small value procurement may only be allowed provided that the BAC has rendered a decision to resort thereto. Furthermore, only those powers specifically delegated by the BAC may be exercised by the delegated unit.  [T]he powers delegated by the BAC do not include the power to award the procurement contract as this is vested with the Head of the Procuring Entity (HOPE). (underscoring supplied) While the question raised was from delegation matters as stipulated under GPPB Resolution No. 09-2009 (Guidelines on Shopping and Small Value Procurement), the last paragraph of the opinion should already be self-explanatory. What will happen if the BAC resolution that requires the approval of the HOPE continues at large with just the “Noted” in it? Two major effects: 1. The resolution had no effect or is deemed invalid, and, 2. There is a violation in the prescribed procurement process/procedures, which may be subject to disallowance by the COA. Let this (legal) opinion stand unless opposed by proper authorities.

In Re: Almacen, 31 SCRA 562 | 3

View more...


Copyright ©2017 KUPDF Inc.