G.R. No. 218721 - Binga Hydroelectric Plant, Inc. vs. Commission on Audit

Binga Hydroelectric Plant, Inc. (BHEPI), represented by its Executive Vice-President, Erwin T. Tan, is the petitioner.
The respondents are the Commission on Audit (COA) and the National Power Corporation (NPC).
The dispute arises from a money claim amounting to $5,000,000.00 and P40,118,442.79, which BHEPI asserted was due under a compromise agreement.

In March 2003, BHEPI, NPC, and the Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation (PSALM) entered into the Settlement Framework Agreement (SFA) aimed at resolving all claims and disputes connected with the Rehabilitate-Operate-Leaseback (ROL) Contract for the 100 MW Binga Hydroelectric Power Plant in Tinongdan, Itogon, Benguet.
The SFA provided that NPC would pay BHEPI an amount equivalent to $5,000,000.00 subject to the complete settlement of unpaid claims of subcontractors and employees, totaling $6,812,552.55, along with the execution of absolute quitclaims and waivers.
BHEPI and NPC agreed that any savings from reducing these claims would be shared equally by the parties.
The SFA was endorsed by the Department of Justice (DOJ), approved by the Secretary of the Department of Energy (DOE), and adopted through resolutions of both NPC and PSALM.

Due to alleged non-compliance by NPC with the SFA conditions, BHEPI filed a case for specific performance with damages in May 2005 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio City demanding the sum of $5,000,000.00 plus an additional $1,700,000.00 representing 50% of the savings.
The RTC dismissed the case, prompting an appeal before the Court of Appeals (CA).
During the pendency of the appeal, both BHEPI and NPC filed a joint motion to approve a compromise agreement.
With assistance from the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), the NPC consented to a compromise whereby BHEPI would be paid $5,000,000.00 and P40,118,442.79—subject to certain conditions—thus settling the claims.
The CA approved the compromise agreement, dismissed the appeal, and issued an entry of judgment.

After the CA’s judgment, BHEPI moved for execution of the judgment before the RTC. However, the trial court directed that money claims against the government or GOCCs must be filed with the COA.
Consequently, BHEPI filed a petition for money claim before the COA, seeking recognition of the CA’s judgment award based on the compromise agreement.
In its Decision No. 2013-050 and subsequent Resolution No. 2015-134, the COA denied BHEPI’s money claim on two grounds:

The power to compromise claims of this nature is vested exclusively in the Commission or Congress under Section 20(1), Chapter IV, Subtitle B, Title I, Book V of Executive Order (EO) No. 292.
The Compromise Agreement was invalid as it had not been submitted to the COA for its required approval, and PSALM, an indispensable party, was not a signatory.

BHEPI argued that the CA’s judgment on the Compromise Agreement was final and immutable, asserting that this finality precluded the COA from reexamining the validity and veracity of the claim.
BHEPI maintained that the compromise agreement—reached in good faith and approved by the OSG—was substantively correct since the liability of the NPC had been adequately assessed at the execution of the SFA.
The petitioner further contended that evidence presented in its earlier case for specific performance substantiated the claims, contrary to the COA’s findings.

Whether BHEPI’s petition for review was filed within the prescribed 30-day period under Rule 64, considering the filing of its motion for reconsideration and subsequent notice of denial.

Whether the COA erred in asserting that the power to compromise claims exceeding P100,000.00 lies exclusively with Congress as provided by Section 20(1) of EO No. 292.
Whether the purported autonomy of the NPC as a GOCC or its implied authority under Presidential Decree No. 1445 could legitimize the compromise agreement.

Whether the final and executory nature of the Court of Appeals’ judgment precluded the COA from reexamining the contested compromise agreement and the associated money claim.

Whether the claims, including the calculation of savings and the assignment of liabilities, were adequately supported by documentary evidence, including detailed accounting records and board resolutions.
Whether the absence of PSALM’s participation and proper documentation rendered the claim unsubstantiated.