RA 9184

Section 37. Notice and Execution of Award. - Within a period not exceeding

fifteen (15) calendar days from the determination and declaration by the BAC of
the Lowest Calculated Responsive Bid or Highest Rated Responsive Bid, and the
recommendation of the award, the Head of the Procuring Entity or his duly
authorized representative shall approve or disapprove the said recommendation.
In case of approval, the Head of the Procuring Entity or his duly authorized
representative shall immediately issue the Notice of Award to the bidder with the
Lowest Calculated Responsive Bid or Highest Rated Responsive Bid.

Within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the Notice of Award, the winning
bidder shall formally enter into contract with the Procuring Entity. When further
approval of higher authority is required, the approving authority for the contract
shall be given a maximum of twenty (20) calendar days to approve or
disapprove it.

In the case of government owned and/or controlled corporations, the concerned

board shall take action on the said recommendation within thirty (30) calendar
days from receipt thereof.

The Procuring Entity shall issue the Notice to Proceed to the winning bidder not
later than seven (7) calendar days from the date of approval of the contract by
the appropriate authority. All notices called for by the terms of the contract shall
be effective only at the time of receipt thereof by the contractor.

Section 38. Period of Action on Procurement Activities. - The procurement

process from the opening of bids up to the award of contract shall not exceed
three (3) months, or a shorter period to be determined by the procuring entity
concerned. Without prejudice to the provisions of the preceding section, the
different procurement activities shall be completed within reasonable periods to
be specified in the IRR.

If no action on the contract is taken by the head of the procuring entity, or by

his duly authorized representative, or by the concerned board, in the case of
government owned and/or controlled corporations, within the periods specified
in the preceding paragraph, the contract concerned shall be deemed approved.

G.R. No. 212381, April 22, 2015 (The Vehicle Plate No. Case)

REYNALDO M. JACOMILLE, Petitioner, v. HON. JOSEPH EMILIO A. ABAYA,

IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION AND
COMMUNICATIONS (DOTC); ATTY. ALFONSO V. TAN, JR., IN HIS
CAPACITY AS ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE LAND TRANSPORTATION
OFFICE (LTO); HON. FLORENCIO ABAD, IN HIS CAPACITY AS
SECRETARY OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT (DBM); HON. ARSENIO M.
BALISACAN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE
NATIONAL ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NEDA); HON.
MARIA GRACIA M. PULIDO TAN, IN HER CAPACITY AS CHAIRPERSON OF
THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT (COA) AND POWER PLATES DEVELOPMENT
 CONCEPTS, INC.,/J. KNIERIEM B.V. GOES (JKG) (JOINT VENTURE)
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CHRISTIAN S.
CALALANG, Respondents.

xxx

Nevertheless, the mandatory period of three (3) months under Section 38 was

complied with by the public respondents. The law clearly refers to the period
from the opening of the bids up to the award of the contract and not, as
petitioner claims, up to the posting of the notice of award in the PhilGEPS
website. The opening of the bids was done on May 6 and 7, 2013, and the notice
of award was issued after two and a half months, or on July 22, 2013.

The specific periods of Section 37, however, were not observed. The said
provision states that within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the notice of
award, the winning bidder shall formally enter into a contract with the procuring
entity. It also provides that the procuring entity shall issue to the winning bidder
the notice to proceed not later than seven (7) calendar days from the date of
approval of the contract by the appropriate authority.

Here, the notice of award was issued by the DOTC on July 22, 2013. Yet, the
contract was signed only on February 21, 2014, or seven (7) months, thereafter.
Also, the notice to proceed was issued on February 17, 2014, prior to the
signing of the contract.

xxx

The requirement of availability of funds before the execution of a government

contract, however, has been modified by R.A. No. 9184. The said law
presents a novel policy which requires, not only the sufficiency of funds
at the time of the signing of the contract, but also upon the
commencement of the procurement process. 

xxx

Conclusion

The Court concludes that MVPSP did not follow the timelines provided in Sec. 37
of R.A. No. 9184. As earlier recited, the project did not have the adequate
appropriation when its procurement was commenced on February 20,
2013, contrary to the provisions of Sections 5a, 7 and 20 of R.A. No. 9184. The
DOTC and the LTO likewise failed to secure the MYOA (the funds) before
the start of the procurement process even though MVPSP is MYP
involving MYC. All these irregularities tainted the earlier procurement process
and rendered it null and void.

At the outset, however, the Court has stated that the present petition has been
rendered moot and academic by the appropriation for the full amount of the
project fund in GAA 2014. Said appropriation "cured" whatever defect the
process had.

As to whether the responsible public officials should be held accountable for the
irregularities in the procurement process of MVPSP, the Court deems that it is
not the proper forum to resolve the issue as it is not a trier of facts and it cannot
receive new evidence from the parties to aid it in the prompt resolution of the
issue.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for being moot and academic.