Case Digest (G.R. No. 110798)
Facts:
The case involves Odelon T. Buscaino, the petitioner, against the Commission on Audit (COA), the respondent. The events leading to this case began when Buscaino, serving as the Director of Fiscal Management Services at the Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP), was held jointly and severally liable for audit disallowances amounting to P1,527,176.40. His responsibilities included signing disbursement vouchers and certifying the availability of funds, as well as being a member of the PUP Canvass and Award Committee. The audit disallowances stemmed from four Certificates of Settlement and Balances (CSBs) issued by the former PUP Auditor, Ireneo Monteverde, which disallowed a total of P993,933.32 due to overpriced purchases of office and school supplies, violating applicable laws and regulations.
A motion for reconsideration was filed by former PUP President Dr. Pablo Mateo and Buscaino, but COA Decision No. 826, dated March 3, 1989, affirmed the disallowances, citin...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 110798)
Facts:
Petitioner’s Role and Background:
Odelon T. Buscaino, the petitioner, was the Director of Fiscal Management Services at the Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP), holding the position of Chief Financial Management Officer II. His responsibilities included signing disbursement vouchers, certifying the availability of funds, and ensuring the legality and propriety of supporting documents. He was also a member of the PUP Canvass and Award Committee, which recommended the award of contracts to suppliers.
Disallowances and Certificates of Settlement and Balances (CSBs):
Former PUP Auditor Ireneo Monteverde issued four CSBs in 1986, disallowing an aggregate amount of P993,933.32 due to overpriced purchases of office and school supplies, allegedly violating relevant laws and regulations. A motion for reconsideration was filed by former PUP President Dr. Pablo Mateo and the petitioner, but the Commission on Audit (COA) affirmed the disallowances in Decision No. 826, dated March 3, 1989, citing the absence of public bidding or canvassing, which led to overpricing.
Increased Disallowances and Additional Liabilities:
In COA Decision No. 1508, dated September 20, 1990, the disallowed amount was increased to P2,379,304.98, and additional CSBs were issued. The petitioner was held jointly and solidarily liable for 32 transactions, including overpriced purchases, short deliveries, unauthorized allowances, and other irregularities.
Petitioner’s Defense and Requests for Documents:
The petitioner argued that his role was limited to certifying the availability of funds and legality of documents, and he was not involved in determining prices or procurement processes. He requested documents from COA to substantiate the claims of overpricing, but COA denied his requests, stating that the necessary information was already contained in the CSBs.
COA Decision No. 2826:
On April 12, 1993, COA rendered Decision No. 2826, partially excluding the petitioner from liability for disallowances amounting to P428,678.12 but holding him liable for the remaining P1,527,176.40. The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, challenging the COA’s decision.
Timeliness of Petition:
The respondent COA argued that the petition was filed late, while the petitioner contended that he received the COA decision on June 15, 1993, and his motion for extension was filed within the 30-day reglementary period.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- (Unlock)
Ratio:
Liability for Overpricing and Irregularities:
The petitioner’s role was limited to certifying the availability of funds and legality of documents, and he was not involved in the procurement or pricing process. The COA failed to provide the petitioner with the necessary documents to substantiate the claims of overpricing, thereby denying him due process. Without sufficient evidence, the COA’s disallowances could not be upheld.Due Process and Sufficiency of Evidence:
The COA’s failure to furnish the petitioner with the canvass sheets or price quotations from suppliers rendered the disallowances baseless. Mere allegations of overpricing, without supporting evidence, are insufficient to justify audit disallowances.Timeliness of the Petition:
The petitioner filed his motion for extension within the 30-day reglementary period, and the Court found that the petition was timely filed based on the evidence presented.COA’s Grave Abuse of Discretion:
The COA’s decision was tainted with grave abuse of discretion, as it failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the disallowances and denied the petitioner the opportunity to refute the charges.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, reversing the COA’s decision and holding that the petitioner could not be held liable for the disallowances due to insufficient evidence and lack of due process.
###