Facts:

The case involves Razul K. Abpi (petitioner) and the Commission on Audit (COA) as the respondent. The events leading to this case began during Abpi's tenure as the Caretaker of the Department of Public Works and Highways-Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (DPWH-ARMM) and as the Provincial Engineer of Maguindanao, which he held concurrently until his retirement in 2012. On October 3, 2005, he was appointed as the Caretaker of DPWH-ARMM. In 2010, the COA established a Special Audit Team (SAT) to evaluate the accounting and utilization of funds, as well as the efficiency of project implementation within DPWH-ARMM for the period from January 2008 to December 2009. The audit revealed significant irregularities, including improper recording and management of funds, leading to the issuance of sixteen Notices of Disallowance (NDs) against Abpi, totaling P846,536,603.80. The SAT's findings indicated that Abpi had signed disbursement vouchers and purchase orders without the n...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• This case involves a Petition for Certiorari filed under Rule 64 (in relation to Rule 65) by Razul K. Abpi against the Commission on Audit (COA).
• The petition seeks the reversal of two COA actions:
• COA Decision No. 2016-297 dated 19 October 2016.
• COA Resolution No. 2020-175 dated 29 January 2020.
• The challenged decisions resulted in the confirmation of Notices of Disallowances (NDs) totaling P846,536,603.80 in connection with irregularities incurred during petitioner’s tenure as the Caretaker of the Department of Public Works and Highways-Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (DPWH-ARMM).

Petitioner’s Roles and Events Leading to the Audit

• Prior to his retirement in 2012, Razul K. Abpi held concurrent positions as:
• Provincial Engineer of Maguindanao.
• Caretaker of DPWH-ARMM (appointed on 03 October 2005 under an Office Order issued by the then Regional Governor).
• In 2010, the COA deployed a Special Audit Team (SAT) to review the accounting, utilization of funds, and project implementation efficiency in DPWH-ARMM covering the period from January 2008 to December 2009.
• The SAT discovered that:
• Funds received by DPWH-ARMM were not properly recorded or managed in accordance with applicable laws, rules, and regulations.
• Several anomalies in the procurement of construction materials, construction/rehabilitation of roads, cash advances, and payments to pakyaw labor contractors and suppliers/contractors.
• As a consequence of the audit findings, the SAT issued sixteen (16) Notices of Disallowances in which petitioner was implicated for his actions in connection with approval, certification, and contract awards.

Specific Alleged Irregularities and Petitioner’s Defense

• Petitioner was held accountable because he:
• Signed disbursement vouchers, purchase orders, and requisition and issuance slips even in the absence of supporting documents.
• Awarded contracts without adhering to required public bidding procedures.
• Certified certificates of completion asserting compliance with plans and specifications when evident deficiencies were present.
• In response, on 14 June 2013, petitioner filed an Appeal Memorandum and Motion for Exclusion before the Office of the SAO Director, arguing:
• That he acted in good faith by relying on recommendations and certifications of his subordinates.
• That his role was merely ministerial, and the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties applied.
• The SAO, however, denied his appeal in SAO Decision No. 2013-001 on 23 May 2013, reaffirming the findings and emphasizing that his participation could not be deemed merely ministerial under Section 102 of Presidential Decree No. 1445.
• Subsequent actions included the filing of a Petition for Review with the COA Commission Proper on 04 July 2013 and later motions for reconsideration concerning the finality of the decisions rendered.

COA’s Procedural and Substantive Findings

• On 19 October 2016, COA Decision No. 2016-297 dismissed petitioner’s petition for review on the grounds of:
• Belated filing.
• Defective verification and certification against forum shopping.
• Despite the dismissal on procedural grounds, COA also maintained that the appeal lacked both factual and legal basis.
• A separate opinion by COA Chairperson Michael Aguinaldo noted that while the petitioner’s exclusion from liability might be considered, his direct participation in the transactions negated such relief.
• The finality of the action was compounded when a Notice of Finality of Decision was issued on 28 February 2018, and subsequent motions by petitioner for reconsideration were denied in the Resolution of 29 January 2020.

Issue:

Timeliness and Compliance with Procedural Requirements

• Whether the COA’s dismissal of the petitioner’s appeal was justified based on the belated filing of his Petition for Certiorari and the failure to adhere to the verification and certification against forum shopping.
• Whether the petitioner’s arguments regarding the interruption of the reglementary periods (due to the filing of an omnibus motion and subsequent motions) were sufficient to extend the filing period.

Substantive Review of COA’s Findings and Alleged Irregularities

• Whether the COA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in sustaining the Notices of Disallowances based on what was characterized as an incomplete audit.
• Whether the COA erred in affirming petitioner’s liability for the issued NDs by failing to properly consider his defense that his actions were ministerial and done in good faith.
• Whether petitioner successfully demonstrated that the COA’s exercise of discretion was arbitrary or capricious to the point of constituting a violation of due process or misuse of power.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)