Liability for the disallowed amounts To begin with, the case of Arias is a criminal case for violation of Section 3, paragraph (e), of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, in connection with the overpricing of a land purchased by the government as a right of way for its Manggahan Floodway Project in Pasig, Rizal. Second. The factual milieus therein are not in all fours with the instant case. In that case, Arias, the auditor who approved in audit the acquisition and payment of the lands, was acquitted by the Court because it found no other ground to sustain a conspiracy charge except for his mere signature or approval appearing on a voucher. In acquitting Arias, the Court took into consideration the fact that he joined the office only after the properties were purchased and the fact that he had no choice but to rely on his subordinates given the volume of documents involved in that case. The instant case, on the other hand, involves a disallowance. And unlike in Arias, petitioner herein was the Administrator when the public bidding was conducted up to the time when the payment was issued to Argus. Hence, petitioner cannot evade liability. Neither can petitioner claim that there was no negligence or bad faith on her part considering that there were blatant violations of the rules on public bidding, which petitioner as Administrator should have been aware of. In view of the foregoing, no grave abuse of discretion can be imputed to respondent COA-CP as to its finding that petitioner is one of those liable for the disallowed amount. The end. You can help our Pages by clicking the orange box 🟧 at the bottom of our article. We are grateful for your support. ❤️ 👇👇👇