The younger Binay argued that he did not rig the bidding process for the Phase 6 of the construction of the MSHS building in favor of Hilmarc Construction, saying he acted in good faith and that there was nothing in the bid process that would have made him withhold his signature on the resolution awarding the P166. 85-million contract for the said phase to the company as well as on the notice to commence work, certificate of completion and acceptance and the disbursement vouchers.
Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Arias v. Sandiganbayan, he said heads of offices may, in good faith, rely to a certain extent on the acts of their subordinates “who prepare bids, purchase supplies, or enter into negotiations. Said reliance is based upon the recognition that heads of offices cannot be expected to examine every single document relative to government transactions.”
“The application of the doctrine is subject to the qualification that the public official has no foreknowledge of any facts or circumstances that would prompt him or her to investigate or exercise a greater degree of care. In a number of cases, the Supreme Court refused to apply the Arias doctrine considering that there were circumstances that should have prompted the government official to inquire further,” the appeals court said.
Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: inquirerdotnet - 🏆 3. / 86 Read more »