Guevara v. Gimenez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The District Engineer of Sorsogon prepared program of work and detailed estimate for the reconstruction of a school building. Initially, painting was omitted from the estimate and specifications. Upon approval by the Division Engineer, the appropriation was P40,000.00, with the condition that painting be included. Consequently, a specification for painting was prepared and appended as page six. Procedural History: An invitation to bid was advertised. Fernando Guevara applied for and was issued the plans and specifications. His bid of P37,500.00 was the lowest, and the contract was awarded to him. The contract, signed on December 17, 1954, expressly incorporated the complete plans and specifications. Guevara received a copy of the contract with appendices on January 31, 1955. Construction was completed 85 days later, and payments were made based on monthly amortizations. On May 24, 1955, Guevara filed a claim for P4,620.00 for painting costs, asserting it was not covered by the contract. The claim was denied by the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, subsequently by two petitions for reconsideration, and finally by the Auditor General. The Appeal: Fernando Guevara appealed to the Supreme Court pursuant to Commonwealth Act 327, arguing that bidders were unaware of the inclusion of painting because it was not added to the plans and specifications furnished prior to the bidding. He presented affidavits from two other bidders supporting this claim. The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether the contract for the reconstruction of the school building included painting.
Issue(s)
Whether the contract for the reconstruction of the Sorsogon Central School building included painting. Whether the affidavits of other bidders hold sufficient probative value against the testimony of government employees and documentary evidence.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Auditor General, ruling that the contract for the reconstruction of the school building included painting. As petitioner Fernando Guevara had been fully paid the contract price of P37,500.00, no additional payment was due.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court found that the contract for the reconstruction of the school building included painting. This conclusion was based on the testimony of government employees who stated that the specification for painting was prepared and appended to the original specifications as page six, and that copies of the complete specifications, including page six, were distributed to prospective bidders, including petitioner Guevara. The Court gave more credence to the testimonies of these government employees, who were performing their official duties, than to the affidavits of other bidders, which were deemed to have doubtful probative value. Furthermore, evidence showed that Guevara submitted paint samples and that his payment vouchers during construction explicitly mentioned "painting and varnishing," demonstrating his knowledge that painting was part of the contract. The Court also noted the suspicious incident where page 6 of the specifications went missing from the file copy and was found concealed in a notebook borrowed by Guevara's assistant, suggesting an attempt to remove evidence of the painting specification. On Issue 2: The Supreme Court held that the affidavits of other bidders, Francisco V. Nicolas and Amadeo Briones, had doubtful probative value. The Court reasoned that affiants, being contractors themselves, might be inclined to favor the petitioner in his claim against the government, making their statements potentially biased. This was contrasted with the testimonies of government employees Santiago P. Ojeda, Juan S. Lopez, and Cesar Gacias, whose statements were presumed to be made in the regular performance of their duties. The Court applied the presumption of regularity under Section 5(m), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, and found no sufficient evidence to overcome this presumption, especially in light of the suspicious circumstances surrounding the missing page of specifications and Guevara's own actions during construction that indicated his awareness of the painting requirement.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed that a contract for reconstruction, which included painting as per the appended specifications, is binding upon the contractor. The Court emphasized that contractors are expected to verify all relevant details, including approved plans and specifications, before submitting their bids. Furthermore, the Court upheld the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by government employees involved in the bidding and contract administration process, giving more weight to their testimonies over affidavits of questionable probative value.