Security agency’s P13M claim against MRT-3 junked

THE Commission on Audit has affirmed its 2018 decision denying the P13.05 million claim of a private security agency against the Metro Rail Transit 3 (MRT 3) representing non-payment for 125 security guards deployed to the rail line from January 1 to June 18, 2013.

The COA en banc said it found nothing substantial in the Motion for Reconsideration filed by claimant Kaizen Security Agency Corp. (KSAC) that would warrant a reversal of the assailed ruling.

“This Commission maintains its decision and denies this MR because most of the issues raised by KSAC in its MR and the supplemental MR were already adjudicated by this Commission in Decision No. 2018-052,” the commission said.

The ruling was signed by COA Chairperson Gamaliel A. Cordoba and Commissioners Roland Café Pondoc and Mario G. Lipana.

Kaizen, represented by its president Eric Magno Respicio, said it is entitled to be compensated for services provided even under the principle of quantum meruit, which allows a reasonable return of value for services rendered or goods delivered.

While it admitted the absence of a contract for the deployment of additional security guards, the contractor insisted that 125 of its personnel reported for duty and rendered services to the MRT 3 line.

As proof, it cited a June 21, 2013 letter from then MRT 3 general manager Al Vitangcol, a memorandum from

Assistant Secretary for Legal Affairs Gerald Chan, a letter from undersecretary for Legal Perpetuo Lotilla, and another letter dated June 18, 2014 from MRT 3 Safety and Security officer-in-charge Bernardo Antonio Alejandro III.

However, the COA said evidence on record does not amount to sufficient proof of the obligation incurred.

It pointed out that only photocopies of the original receipts of the guards’ contributions to PhilHealth, PagIBIG Fund, and Social Security System (SSS) as well as the payroll of the security guards were presented.

Likewise, the list of PagIBIG Fund contributions did not bear any signature and was left undated.

“Since the KSAC still failed to present other required documents in order for this Commission to determine the propriety of its claim, including the amount payable to it, then it is only proper