In Re: Almacen, 31 SCRA 562

19 JUL

FACTS:

Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen filed a Petition to Surrender the Lawyers 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 its 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

Subject : Delegation of Authority by the Bids and Awards Committee

Date : 2012-04-04

Requesting
Entity : Supreme Court- Office of the Court Administrator

Issues
Concern : Delegation of Authority by the Bids and Awards Committee

Details : 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