G.R. No. 212376 - Buisan vs. Commission on Audit

In 1989, the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) undertook the construction of the Liguasan Cut-off Channel in Tunggol, Pagalungan, Maguindanao, aimed at mitigating perennial flooding.
By April 2001, various landowners alleged that the premature opening of the Project caused damages to their crops, properties, and improvements and filed claims with DPWH.
The Regional Director (RD) of DPWH Region XII investigated these claims.
By 2004, the DPWH Regional Office and its Technical Working Group recommended payment of just compensation but noted the inability to precisely quantify damaged crops and properties due to the lapse of time.
An ad hoc committee was formed in 2006 to evaluate the claims’ legality and propriety but made no final resolution due to insufficient evidence and time lapse.
As claims exceeded DPWH’s jurisdiction, they were returned to claimants with instructions to seek redress before the Commission on Audit (COA).

On April 14, 2010, petitioners, represented by Mayor Bai Annie C. Montawal, filed a claim before the COA seeking P122,051,850.00 as compensation for damages allegedly caused by the Project.
The petition was met with a Motion to Dismiss filed by Madag Buisan claiming Montawal lacked authority to represent the petitioners who themselves filed a separate COA petition for the same claim.
DPWH, in its Answer, challenged ownership of damaged properties, causation by DPWH’s project, and raised prescription issues.
On November 20, 2012, COA denied the claims due to lack of merit, laches, and prescription. It emphasized the petitioners’ failure to timely assert their rights under Article 1146 of the Civil Code.
A motion for reconsideration by petitioners was denied by COA on February 14, 2014.

The petition to the Supreme Court was filed without proper certification against forum shopping, as the certification was signed only by Montawal without proof of authority such as a Special Power of Attorney from the landowners.
The petitioners failed to establish Montawal’s legal capacity, which was questioned in the COA proceedings, resulting in procedural infirmities.

Whether the Commission on Audit gravely abused its discretion in finding that the petitioners’ claim is barred by laches and prescription.
Whether the petitioners complied with the requirements on certification against forum shopping.
Whether the Doctrine of Non-Suability of the State applies to insulate the DPWH from monetary claims arising from governmental functions such as the construction of the Project.