Republic of the Philippines

PROVINCE OF ILOCOS NORTE

Laoag City
ISO 9001-2015 CERTIFIED

June 18, 2018

MS. VICENTA P. DELA CRUZ

State Auditor IV
Audit Team Leader

MS. MARILYN J. LLAGUNO

OIC – Supervising Auditor

Re: REJOINDER for AOM No. 22

Dear Madams:

This pertains to the observations and requirements set forth by

your prestigious office during the Exit Conference held on 11 June
2018.

In particular, the observation made by your office in regard to

AOM No. 22 pertains to:

VARIOUS SUPLIES AND EQUIPMENT PROCURED

BY THE PROVINCE WERE MADE WITH REFERENCE TO
BRAND NAMES CONTRARY TO SECTION 18 OF THE
REVISED IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS OF
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9184, THUS THE MOST
ADVANTAGEOUS FOR THE GOVERNMENT COULD NOT
BE ATTAINED.

We have replied to the above-cited observation that there had

already been deliveries and the BAC warranted through its Resolution
that provision of RA 9184 was followed, thus, the OIC-Provincial
Accountant shall no longer consider processing such obligations for
payment.
 However, deeper enquiry was conducted as to why such an
oversight was committed in the procurement of the transactions
enumerated in AOM No. 22.

It appears that the floor polishers 16” and 12” mostly used are
the brands Wilson and Floormate, respectively. That, over the years,
these brands have continually been purchased for being reliable yet
inexpensive. The same is true with the brand Makita insofar as angle
grinder 4” is concerned.

Thus, the brand names Wilson, Floormate, and Makita, when

written on the purchase order, it was without intention on the part of
any of the signatories, as well as preparers of said documents, to put
any advantage over these brands.

More importantly, there was no malice and intention to place the

government at a disadvantage by willfully citing these brands in order
to give them preference over any other brands.

It was only because over a long period of time, and by virtue

of the very quality of these brands that have proven reliability
and effectiveness, they have somehow earned their brand names
to be consistently used and be considered by the consuming public
as generic names.

In an article, it was observed that “many items we use every day,

like zippers and escalators, were once brand names. Xxx. These
names are or were trademarked, but are now often used to
describe any brand in a product category.”1

Few of the cited brands in said article are the following brand
names: Ping-pong, Jacuzzi, Jet Ski, Scotch tape, Band-Aids, and Xerox.

This has become somewhat of a phenomenon in our market over

the years and whether we accept it or not, is a reality.

This allusion again transpired for two separate transactions,

which were also mentioned in AOM No. 22 – split type aircon for the
brand Carrier, as well as a tablet for the brand Ipad. These brands
have also earned their respect for reliability, prominence, and quality
in their own fields.

1
41 Brand Names People Use as Generic Terms, by Lauren Hill, May 9, 2014.
http://mentalfloss.com/article/56667/41-brand-names-people-use-generic-terms
 It is however the opinion of PGIN that, even if the brands for the
items identified in AOM No. 22 were bid, procured, purchased, and
paid, the government still obtained the most advantageous price from
interested qualified bidders/suppliers.

Nevertheless, it is no reason that we will not comply with the

strict provisions of Revised IRR of RA 9184 in the procurement of
goods, particularly on the prohibition of reference to brand names
to ensure wider participation of suppliers and obtain more
competitive bids.

It was never the intention of the all departments concerned to

disregard rules and regulations of RA 9184, it was only for the reasons
above-cited that such oversight was committed.

Inasmuch as we wanted to avoid all possible transgression in

the procurement laws, we would like to point out other reasons for
the lapse that we have committed: (1) our province has voluminous
transactions and we had to pour over hundreds of documents that we
altogether missed the brand names; and, (2) aside from the identified
transactions, no brand names were used in any other purchases, thus,
it was only a matter of honest mistake, and that no malice and utter
bad faith was committed, and nothing but human error.

Having said all these, we respectfully submit the matter of

considering our oversight as an innocent mistake, one that we will do
our best to avoid duplicating in future procurement.

Thank you very much.

Very truly yours,

Jacqueline D. Pagatpatan
OIC-Provincial Accountant

Engr. Pedro S. Agcaoili, Jr.

Former BAC Chairman