Case Digest (G.R. No. 228595)
Facts:
Former Municipal Mayor Helen C. De Castro, Toby C. Gonzales, Jr., Dennis H. Dino, Carmencita S. Morata and Liza L. Hollon v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 228595, September 22, 2020, the Supreme Court En Banc, Gaerlan, J., writing for the Court.The Municipal Government of Bulan (MGB) enacted Ordinance No. 004, Series of 2003 to authorize bond flotation to fund priority projects including the Bulan Integrated Bus Terminal (BIBT) and a new Municipal Slaughterhouse. In October 2006 the MGB conducted public biddings and awarded construction contracts to S.R. Baldon Construction & Supply (BIBT) and Steven Construction & Supply (slaughterhouse). After payment, the COA Regional Cluster directed a special audit (Office Order No. 2008-06-07) whose Audit Team Leader (ATL) issued Notices of Disallowance (NDs) in August–October 2009 asserting various deficiencies, cost variances, liquidated damages, and alleged failure to post procurement opportunities in PhilGEPS under RA No. 9184 and its IRR-A.
The aggrieved private contractors and the municipal officials appealed to the COA Regional Director (COA‑RD), Region V. On June 4, 2012 the COA‑RD issued Decision No. 2012‑L‑007: it partly affirmed, partly lifted, and partly modified the ATL’s NDs (reducing some amounts, lifting others, but sustaining an overestimation portion). Because the RD modified the ATL’s findings, the matter was submitted for automatic review to COA Proper pursuant to the 2009 Revised Rules of Procedure of the COA (RRPC). On September 11, 2014 COA Proper rendered Decision No. 2014‑209 that affirmed with modification the RD’s ruling but reinstated certain liabilities (notably holding then‑Mayor De Castro liable for a P2,638,776 liquidated‑damages disallowance arising from a work suspension order). Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which COA denied in Resolution No. 2016‑330 dated November 9, 2016.
Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 in relation to Rule 64 of the Rules of Court before the Supreme Court, challenging COA Proper’s Decision (Sept. 11, 2014) and Resolution (Nov. 9, 2016) on multiple grounds: timeliness and due‑process violations, improper legal bases (including use of DPWH/ACEL equipment rates allegedly not filed with ONAR), misapplication of audit/disallowance principles, and erroneous imputation of liabilities against certain officials and...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the petition timely filed and, if not, should the Court relax procedural rules to entertain it?
- Were petitioners denied their constitutional right to speedy disposition and administrative due process by COA?
- Were the various Notices of Disallowance validly sustained by COA Proper: (a) ND No. 2008‑06‑27‑001‑101 (unaccomplished deficiency/LD for transformer); (b) ND No. 2008‑06‑27‑002‑101 (cost variance—overestimation and overpricing); (c) ND No. 2008‑06‑27‑003‑101 (liquidated damages for 80‑day delay—work suspension order); (d) ND No. 2008‑06‑27‑004‑101 (liquidated damages for 34‑day delay/slaughterhouse); and (e) ND Nos. 2008‑06‑27‑005‑101 and 006‑101 (nullity of contracts for...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)