Case Digest (G.R. No. 227227)
Facts:
Cresencio D. Arcena, in his capacity as the President of Berlyn Construction and Development Corporation, petitioner, vs. Commission on Audit, respondent, G.R. No. 227227, February 09, 2021, the Supreme Court En Banc, Lopez, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Cresencio D. Arcena (Arcena) was the payee-contractor and president/proprietor of Berlyn Construction and Development Corporation. The dispute arose from special audits of infrastructure works implemented by the Philippine Marine Corps (PMAR) in 1995–1996 for the replication/relocation of the Philippine Marine Headquarters to the Marine Base in Ternate (MBT projects), with total funding of P69,983,830.00. At the Office of the Ombudsman’s request, COA conducted a special audit (audit team report dated November 27, 2008) that found disbursements exceeded as-built plans by 2.33% (P1,590,173.66). A Notice of Disallowance (ND No. PMAR‑MBT‑2008‑01) dated November 25, 2008 was issued naming Arcena liable.
Arcena appealed to the COA‑Fraud and Audit Investigation Office (FAIO); FAIO rendered Decision No. 2010‑002 dated August 26, 2010 affirming the ND. Arcena then filed a petition for review to the COA Proper (dates in the record: he alleged filing February 28, 2011; the COA Proper treated the petition as filed March 3, 2011). In Decision No. 2015‑289 dated November 24, 2015, the COA Proper dismissed Arcena’s petition as filed out of time under the 2009 Revised Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Audit (2009 RRPC), noting his petition failed to state the exact date of receipt of the ND and computing the appeal periods (assuming ND receipt on the last day of February 2009, Arcena consumed 26 days to appeal the ND to FAIO on March 26, 2009; upon receipt of the FAIO decision on August 26, 2010 he had 154 days remaining or until January 27, 2011 to file to the COA Proper, but his petition was filed beyond that date). Arcena’s motion for reconsideration (claiming he received the FAIO decision only on October 4, 2010) was denied in COA Decision No. 2016‑197 dated August 12, 2016.
Arcena elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion: (1) the COA dismissed his petition for review as untimely; and (2) the COA did not rule on the merits. He also contended the MBT transactions were “settled accounts” immune from reopening under Section 52 of PD No. 1445 and challenged COA’s use of Sub‑Allotment Advices (SA...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Commission on Audit commit grave abuse of discretion by dismissing Arcena’s petition for review for being filed out of time?
- Did the Commission on Audit commit grave abuse of discretion by not ruling on the merits—i.e., were the MBT project accounts already settled under Section 52 of PD No. 1445, and was COA’s computatio...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)