Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Sayson v. Singson

    Uploaded by

    Alexis Catu
    133 views1 page
    This case involved a public bidding process for spare parts where Singson's bid was accepted. However, during the payment process, the auditing office discovered the parts were overpriced by around PhP 40,000 based on prices in the United States. Singson filed a case to compel payment of the remaining 20% balance. The Supreme Court ruled that Singson could not file suit against the government to enforce an overpriced claim. The Court also noted Singson should have filed a claim with the General Auditing Office first before elevating the matter to the Supreme Court, if needed.

    Original Description:

    sayson

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This case involved a public bidding process for spare parts where Singson's bid was accepted. However, during the payment process, the auditing office discovered the parts were overpriced by around PhP 40,000 based on prices in the United States. Singson filed a case to compel payment of the remaining 20% balance. The Supreme Court ruled that Singson could not file suit against the government to enforce an overpriced claim. The Court also noted Singson should have filed a claim with the General Auditing Office first before elevating the matter to the Supreme Court, if needed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    133 views1 page

    Sayson v. Singson

    Uploaded by

    Alexis Catu
    This case involved a public bidding process for spare parts where Singson's bid was accepted. However, during the payment process, the auditing office discovered the parts were overpriced by around PhP 40,000 based on prices in the United States. Singson filed a case to compel payment of the remaining 20% balance. The Supreme Court ruled that Singson could not file suit against the government to enforce an overpriced claim. The Court also noted Singson should have filed a claim with the General Auditing Office first before elevating the matter to the Supreme Court, if needed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    SAYSON vs.

    SINGSON
    G.R. No. L-30044

    Facts: Public bidding was conducted for the requisition of various items of spare parts for the
    repair of D-8 bulldozer. Committee on Award accepted the bid of the respondent and
    subsequently approved by Sec. Of Public Works and Communications. Subsequently, Secretary
    sent a letter-order to respondent requesting it to immediately deliver the items to which
    respondent immediately rendered.

    During the payment process, voucher for the said purchase signed by the district engineer, in
    due course was pre-audit by Auditor Sayson, thus after finding the said voucher was approved
    by no less than Sec. of Public Works and Communication, Sayson approved the said voucher
    with the condition to temporarily retain the remaining 20% to which he submitted to Supervising
    Auditor.

    Voucher was paid, however, Sayson received a telegram from the Supervising Auditor that
    upon canvass made in the United States, they found out that price of the said parts is way
    overpriced by around Php 40,000.

    In view of the over-pricing auditing office took up the matter to Sec. of Public Works hold the
    district engineer for overpricing and malversation. Singson filed a mandamus to RTC compelling
    the payment of the 20% balance, predicated in the contract. RTC affirmed. Which led to this
    petition to SC.

    Issue: Whether or not based on the foregoing facts, respondent has the right to claim the
    remaining receivables against the govt.

    Held: Respondent cannot file a suit to compel the government to release the remaining 20%.
    The claim is void for the cause or consideration is contrary to law, morals or public policy,
    mandamus is not the remedy to enforce the collection of such claim against the State.
    Mandamus to compel the auditors to approve the vouchers for payment, is a suit against the
    state, which cannot be prosper or be entertained by the Court except with the consent of the
    State. Respondent should just have filed his claim with the General Auditing Office. There is
    nothing to prevent the State, however, in such statutory grant, to require that certain
    administrative proceedings be had and exhausted. Here, there was no ruling of the Auditor
    General. Even had there been such, the court to which the matter should have been elevated is
    this Tribunal; the lower court could not legally act on the matter.

    You might also like