Guevarra v Gimenez 6 SCRA 813

Guevarra v Gimenez 6 SCRA 813

FACTS:

            In 1954, the District Engineer of Sorsogon prepared a program of work and detailed estimate for the reconstruction of the Sorsogon Central School building. Specifications consisting of five pages were likewise prepared. The Cost of painting was left out in the detailed estimate and specifications. The papers were submitted to the Division Engineer in Lucena, Quezon, who returned them duly approved with an authorized appropriation of P40,000.00 "provided that painting shall be included". Whereupon, the specification for painting was accordingly made and appended to the specifications as page six.

            In August 1954 the District Engineer advertised an invitation to bid for “furnishing of all materials, labor and plant, for reconstruction” project. Fernando Guevarra's bid of P37,500 was declared lowest and the contract was awarded to him. Eighty five days after completion of the project, Guevarra file with the Director of Public Works a written claim for the payment of P4,620.00 representing cost of painting not covered by the contract.

            After hearing, Secretary of Public Works and Communications denied the claim and two motion for reconsideration were also denied. On appeal,the Auditor General also denied the claim. Guevarra appealed to the Supreme Court pursuant to CA 327.

ISSUE:

            Whether the contract for the reconstruction of the school building included the painting.

HELD:

            Yes. Testimonies of the employees' should be given more weight than those of the contractors. These government employees testified as to what transpired in the performance of their duties. The presumption is that official duty has been regularly performed.

            [Note:The main issue of the case has nothing to do with COA. However, note that, claims and disbursements of public funds should have be coursed to COA]