Facts:

In the case of Hon. Zaldy Uy Ampatuan (Petitioner) vs. Commission on Audit (Respondent), G.R. No. 252007, decided on December 7, 2021, the petitioner was the former Regional Governor of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) during the relevant events. The Commission on Audit (COA) conducted a special audit of the Office of the Regional Governor (ORG) covering the period from January 2008 to September 2009. As a result of this audit, Notice of Disallowance (ND) No. ORG-12-002-MDS/LF (08 & 09) was issued on January 13, 2012, disallowing payments totaling ₱79,162,435.00 made to Superama, a supermarket. These payments were allegedly made by Adham G. Patadon, ORG-ARMM's Chief Supply Division/Special Disbursing Officer, for office supplies and relief goods, but they were later deemed illegal and irregular for several reasons.

Petitioner was found liable for failing to monitor Patadon's activities, despite his arguments that he had no involvement in the transactio

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• The case involves petitioner Zaldy Uy Ampatuan, the former Regional Governor of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), who implemented certain disbursements through his office.
• The Commission on Audit (COA), through its Special Audit Office (SAO), conducted a special audit of the Office of the Regional Governor (ORG) for the period January 2008 to September 2009.
• Based on the audit, SAO issued a Notice of Disallowance (ND) disallowing P79,162,435.00, which pertained to cash advances obtained by Adham G. Patadon purportedly for office supplies and relief goods.

Irregularities and Findings in the Audit

• The cash advances were granted without a specific purpose, violating COA Circular No. 97-002.
• Transactions ranging from P15,000.00 to P5,000,000.00 were paid in cash, exceeding the prescribed limit of P15,000.00 per transaction.
• Payments made out of cash advances did not undergo proper public bidding, in contravention of Republic Act No. 9184.
• The supporting documents were found to be spurious and inadequate.
• The supplier (Superama) denied transacting business with the ORG during the period, despite the issuance of purported invoices, thereby raising questions about the authenticity of the transactions.
• Additional irregularities noted included overlapping and out-of-sequence invoice serial numbers, lack of evidence of distribution of relief goods, and questionable documentary practices.

Petitioner’s Involvement and Subsequent Proceedings

• Petitioner was held liable under the ND on the basis of his position as Regional Governor for allegedly failing to monitor his subordinates’ actions.
• Petitioner, along with his co-appellants, filed several appeals and motions including an Appeal to the SAO Director, a Petition for Review, a Motion for Reconsideration, and later a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration.
• All earlier appeals and the subsequent petition for relief from judgment were denied on the grounds of procedural defects (such as tardiness in filing) or a lack of new or substantive issues.
• Petitioner contended that he did not personally avail of or have knowledge of the disputed transactions and that his due process rights were violated by his former counsel’s negligence (including unauthorized use of his signature and failure to properly notify him of the ND).

Filing of the Omnibus Motion and the Certiorari

• Petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion reiterating earlier arguments and seeking clarification on unresolved proceedings.
• The COA dismissed the Omnibus Motion as a prohibited second Motion for Reconsideration, prompting the petitioner to file the present Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65.
• The petitioner further alleged that the prescriptive period for filing appeals had not yet commenced because he never received the ND and that the use of electronic signatures deprived him of fundamental due process.

Issue:

Whether petitioner is entitled to relief from a final and executory judgment rendered by the Commission on Audit.

• Does the factual and evidentiary record support holding petitioner, as Regional Governor, liable for the alleged irregular transactions solely on the basis of his office?
• Whether the alleged due process violations pertaining to unauthorized or unknowing signatures and lack of notification of the ND warrant setting aside the final COA rulings.
• Whether a petition for certiorari, filed under Rule 65 instead of Rule 64, is a proper and effective remedy in light of the finality of the challenged COA resolutions.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)