April 6, 2011
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
CONCURRING OPINION
SERENO, J.:
I fully agree that contracts of government agencies without the proper appropriation and the accompanying Certificate of Availability of Funds are void for being contrary to law. In the case of government corporations, of course, the first requirement is not imposable. However, it must be noted that this rule notwithstanding, recovery for unpaid services or sale of goods may still be had, as we enunciated in Vigilar v. Aquino,[1] Royal Trust Corporation v. COA,[2] Eslao v. COA,[3] Melchor v. COA,[4] EPG Construction Company v. Vigilar,[5] and Department of Health v. C.V. Canchela & Associates, Architects.[6] Public interest and equity may dictate that the contractor should be compensated for services rendered and work done that benefited the government and the public.[7] In the instant case, considering that respondent has already been paid the equivalent of around eighty seven (87%) percent of the total contract price, the application of equity principles do not seem to be as imperative as in the cases earlier cited. There is no reason to remand the case for reception of evidence to determine quantum meruit, which is the default solution when the contract supporting the services rendered has been declared void. Had payment to respondent been significantly less as to amount to unjust enrichment on the part of government, I may have had to disagree with the ponencia.
MARIA LOURDES
source: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/april2011/182967_sereno.htm
[1] G.R. No. 180388, January 18, 2011 .
[2] Supreme Court Resolution En Banc, G.R. No. 84202, November 22, 2988, cited in Eslao v. COA, 195 SCRA 730.
[3] G.R. No. 89745, April 8, 1991 , 195 SCRA 730.
[4] G.R. No. 95938, August 16, 1991 , 200 SCRA 705.
[5] G.R. No. 131544, March 16, 2001 , 354 566.
[6] Supra at note 7.
[7] Vigilar v. Aquino, G.R. No. 180388, January 18, 2011 .
No comments:
Post a Comment