Section 25.

Limits on Power to Appropriate

DPWH v. Quiwa, GR No. 183444, October 12, 2011
FACTS:
Due to the Mt. Pinatubo eruption, DPWH engaged the services of the respondents
(construction company) pursuant to an emergency River Control project.
When respondents accomplished the said project, they filed a money claim against
DPWH.
Petitioner DPWH primarily argues that the contracts with respondents were void. It
claimed that there was no certification of the availability of funds issued by the DPWH
Chief Accountant or by the head of its accounting unit as required by Executive Order
No. 292, or the Administrative Code of 1987. It also alleged other deficiencies and
irregularities, which rendered the contract void from its inception, such as the absence of
the requirements enumerated in Presidential Decree (P.D.) Nos. 1594 and 1445; and the
lack of authority on the part of Engineer Philip Meez, Project Manager II of the DPWH
to enter into contracts on behalf of DPWH.
ISSUE:
Whether DPWH may avoid the said contract
RULING:
NO. Notwithstanding these irregularities, it should be pointed out that there is no novelty
regarding the question of satisfying a claim for construction contracts entered into by the
government, where there was no appropriation and where the contracts were considered
void due to technical reasons. It has been settled in several cases that payment for
services done on account of the government, but based on a void contract, cannot be
avoided.