Fictitious Contracted Services In The City Of Manila Questioned By The Commission On Audit

The Commission on Audit filed a two-page notice of disallowance last October 29, 2009 against some of the government officials in the city of Manila. The notice was filed after it was found that the claims for the consultancy payment of the 21 consultants, who were supposedly appointed to work at the office of the mayor, were deficient. However, based from the results of the audit prepared by Domingo C. Bocalan Jr., State Auditor IV, the submitted vouchers or payrolls for the period covering July1, 2007 to June 30, 2009 for alleged contracted services were void and that the supposed 21 consultants were fictitious employees. The illegal transaction was said to have cost the city the amount of P5,058,000.00.

The notice of disallowance was filed soon after Mayor Alfredo Lim said in his affidavit that he did not have any knowledge, whatsoever, of the said transaction, and that he never authorized the purported contracted services to take place. As a follow up, Lim also noted that he did not sign any contract for the said services nor did he allowed the fictitious consultants to receive any consultation fees or compensations. Lim's claims in his affidavit were backed up by three of his trusted staff. They are Rowena Senatin, Helen Natividad and Arturo Mijares.

In their affidavit, the three staff pointed out that the names of the 21 consultants in the payrolls submitted to them were not appointed by the mayor to work in his office. The three also confirmed that the consultants were fictitious. Such government anomaly is an indication of the existence of illegal transactions taking place in the local government of Manila. Likewise, this transaction was not necessarily carried out to help the city but a mere justification for the involved personnel to acquire personal gains.

The notice given by the Commission on Audit named 11 officials from the accounting and property division of Manila. The officials include Pacifico Lagramada, Yolanda Ignacio, Marleen Young, Gloria Quilantang, Vicky Valientes, Erlinda Marteja, Philip Cabalun II, Cherry Chan, Alicia Moscaya, Fritz Noel Borres, and Rodelio Leyson. The said officials consented the release of P5,058,000.00 as a payment to the non-existent consultants for their supposed services to the mayor's office. Mayor Alfredo Lim and the affidavit of his staffs attested the involvement of the said personnel.

In the notice submitted by Bocolan, he recommended that the involved personnel from the accounting and property division of the city of Manila to refund the P5,058,000.00. The said amount was the payment for the consultants of the alleged contracted services. The notice of disallowance given by the Commission on Audit is final and executory under the law, and can only be appealed by the involved participants in the anomalous transaction within six months from the day the notice was filed. Inability to comply to the notice will give the Commission on Audit the power to resort to necessary actions to enforce proper penalties.

Mayor Alfredo Lim may have given his words in order to justify the existence of this anomalous transaction; still, it cannot be denied that there is something inconsistent about the whole story. The only question that needs to be answered in this incident is how did the transaction came to fruition if Mayor Lim did not approve it in the first place? While there may have been people held liable for this transaction, the above question is a simple inquiry to further shed light on how the transaction was carried out. Perhaps this question is needed to be answered for the public's understanding.

A notice of disallowance was given by the Commission on Audit against some of the government officials from the city of Manila. The notice was filed following the deficiencies found in the vouchers submitted to the Commission on Audit, which contained the supposed payment for 21 fictitious consultants. This government anomaly had cost the city P5,058,000.00. Mayor Alfredo Lim noted that he did not approve and signed any of the contracts for the said consultation services.

-Julius Arante