Case Digest (G.R. No. 218347)
Facts:
Adham G. Patadon, Ulama M. Acad, Batolacongan D. Abdullah, and Frederick C. Dedicatoria v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 218347, March 15, 2022, the Supreme Court En Banc, Inting, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are former ORG‑ARMM officials; respondent is the Commission on Audit (COA) and individual COA officers who conducted the Special Audits Office (SAO) review. The petition seeks certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing COA Proper Decision No. 2014‑244 (Sept. 11, 2014) and its March 9, 2015 resolution affirming SAO Decision No. 2013‑011 (Sept. 16, 2013) and Notice of Disallowance (ND) No. ORG‑12‑002‑MDS/LF (08 & 09) (Jan. 13, 2012).The controversy began with SAO Audit Report No. 2010‑01 on the Office of the Regional Governor, Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ORG‑ARMM), which showed aggregate ORG‑ARMM check disbursements of P1,083,502,563.35 for January 2008–September 2009, of which P866,512,945.54 were cash advances. The SAO found P854,748,736.38 of those advances were given to three accountable officers, with P744,559,272.19 advanced to Adham G. Patadon. The SAO and subsequent COA auditor questioned a subset of transactions allegedly for purchases from a supplier named Superama, and concluded many liquidating documents were spurious, payments exceeded COA cash advance ceilings, and procurements were not subjected to competitive bidding.
On January 13, 2012 the COA issued ND No. ORG‑12‑002‑MDS/LF (08 & 09) disallowing P79,162,435.00 in cash advances tied to specified checks and dates. SAO Director Susan P. Garcia, in SAO Decision No. 2013‑011 (Sept. 16, 2013), affirmed the disallowance citing violations of COA Circular No. 97‑002 (cash advance rules) and RA 9184 (government procurement). The petitioners—among them Patadon, Acad, Abdullah, and Dedicatoria—appealed to the COA Proper; the COA Proper denied the petition (Decision No. 2014‑244), principally because the petition was filed out of time and raised no new issues, and denied reconsideration. Ampatuan, the Regional Governor initially named, pursued separate remedies and his case reached the Court in a different docket.
Petitioners brought the present Rule 64 (in relation to Rule 65) petition to the Supreme Court, arguing COA committed grave abuse of discretion by (a) denying them the opportunity to file a comment on the audit findings and to confront COA witnesses (due process); (b) failing to respect the presumption of regularity of official acts; and (c) issuing findings unsupported by sufficient, credible evidence. The COA, t...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Were petitioners denied procedural due process in the disallowance proceedings because COA did not allow (a) filing of a comment to the audit findings and (b) examination of COA witnesses?
- Are COA’s audit findings supported by sufficient and credible evidence?
- Was the disallowance proper under applicable procurement and cash‑advance rules?
- Are petitioners (Patadon, Acad, Abdullah, and Dedicatori...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)