Rules and Regulations on Supply and Property Management in the Local Governments: COA Circular Front Cover. Philippines. Commission on Audit. Details. 1. Whether or not Sec. of Republic Act (R.A ) and Commission on Audit (COA) Circular are superseded by R.A. Rules and regulations on supply and property management in the local governments. COA circular by Philippines. Commission on.
|Published (Last):||11 January 2018|
|PDF File Size:||16.52 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||7.52 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The delivery of six 6 units Dump Truck was circulqr inspected by the designated inspector or inspection committee as no inspection report thereof is attached to the voucher.
His lawyer already sent a demand letter as early as August 18,and respondent Mayor Morales merely replied that payment “will be subject to the availability of the funds of the municipality,” and would be made after the municipal engineer has finished inspecting the bulldozing works.
On May 27,the Ombudsman approved a Resolution 21 finding probable cause against the respondents for violation of Section 3 e of R. The Municipal Mayor should also be the signatories on both Requests for Obligation of Allotment, and the Disbursement Vouchers, as he is the administrator of the fund to which the project had been charged, not the Project Development Officer I of the Municipal Planning and Development Office.
The Ombudsman sent a follow-up letter dated October 16, Executive Summary – Networking. Partial Payment for purchase of six 6 units dump truck equivalent to one 1 unit. On January 19,the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution 28 granting the motion and dismissing the case without prejudice.
Rules and regulations on supply and property management in the local governments
Sandoval and Francisco H. Sample Municipal Compliance Circularr. As the State Auditors stated in their Report:. Manligoy informed petitioner that after consultation with the COA, the withdrawn documents had been reproduced and used as the basis to pay the Municipality’s obligations, and that his checks were ready for release from the cashier, as follows: In this case, the Sandiganbayan granted the Special Prosecutor’s motion and dismissed the case based on its own assessment of the report of the State Auditors, and on the Special Prosecutor’s finding that there is no probable cause for the prosecution of respondents for violation of Section 3 e of R.
The accuracy, validity and existence of property, plant and equipment PPE with a reported book balance of P, On August 8,petitioner withdrew some of the vouchers and other documents relative to the bulldozing work from the Office of the Municipal Treasurer.
Petitioner’s contention, that the 92-3866 made by the Special Prosecutor was independent of the audit made by the State Auditors during the period of February to July relative to Criminal Case No. The results of the special audit would confirm whether the initial finding of probable cause for violation of Section 3 e of R.
Indubitably, the petition, even if considered as petition for review, was time-barred. On hindsight, had petitioner not withdrawn the vouchers and other documents relative to his circcular from the Office of the Municipal Treasurer on August 8 and September 10,respondent Mayor would have uncovered what the State Auditors disclosed in its report:. The court may deny or grant such motion, not out of subservience 92–386 the Special Prosecutor, but in cicrular faithful exercise of judicial discretion and prerogative.
The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of Cebudailynews. Without the documents, respondents circu,ar not ascertain coaa petitioner’s claims were in accord with law, rules and regulations.
Jancom Environmental Corporation, Phil. Mogul35 the Court ruled:. The provincial government said it wants to identify the officials concerned with the disposal of the properties.
Pertinent documents on public bidding conducted as basis of awarding contract dircular Mr. Aquino forwarded a Letter dated March 10, to petitioner, requesting him to claim the checks from Jimenez. Fuentes were identified as a responsible official of Davao Toyozu, Inc.
View PDF – Commission on Audit
This prompted respondents circulaar file a Motion for Reinvestigation dated July 29, before the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner was the sales representative of the Davao Toyozu, Inc. As discussed in Items A and C. Ciruclar also circluar that there were also defects in the two claims for the bulldozing works.
Respondents pointed out that petitioner failed to refute this statement, and that the Ombudsman had hastily resolved the case without even furnishing a copy to their counsel of record. Costs against the petitioner. On August 16,he made demands 14 for Morales to allow the payment of the municipality’s account, which Morales rejected. When necessary to afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused.
As a rule, courts should not interfere vircular the Ombudsman’s investigatory power, exercised through the Special Prosecutor, and the authority to determine the presence or absence of probable cause, except when the finding is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The issues are the following: Petitioner further alleged that the new administration’s duty to pay is already ministerial, in view of the completeness of the documentation and the project implementation on all claims.
Court of Appeals, G. A motion to dismiss the case filed by the fiscal should be addressed to the Court who has the option to grant or deny the same. On the other hand, if the Special Prosecutor files a motion to dismiss the case or 92386 for leave to file a motion to withdraw the Information after a reinvestigation authorized by the court, the resolution of such motion rests on the sound discretion of the trial court.
Bacolod City Government Center
The disposals were covered by an agreement between the province and the concerned home owners associations as well as a resolution from the Provincial Board PB allowing the transfer of the lot ownership. The pertinent provision reads:. These findings confirmed the correctness of the respondent’s intial refusal to pay petitioner’s claims, initially 923-86 the latter had withdrawn the pertinent vouchers and documents.