G.R. No. 218347 - Patadon vs. Commission on Audit

The case originated from the Special Audits Office’s (SAO) audit of the operations of the Office of the Regional Governor, Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ORG-ARMM).
The SAO Audit Report No. 2010-01 highlighted extensive disbursements, particularly cash advances related to the agency's transactions.
A significant issue arose with the cash advances drawn by Adham G. Patadon, who is charged with utilizing these funds for purchases from Superama.

The SAO observed that from January 2008 to September 2009, ORG-ARMM issued large sums in checks, including cash advances used for operational purposes.
Out of P854,748,736.38 granted as cash advances, 23 of 29 checks totaling P78,802,435.00 were issued in excess of limits set under COA Circular No. 97-002 (P15,000 per transaction).
The SAO identified that the cash advances drawn by Patadon, amounting to P79,162,435.00, were disbursed without a specific purpose, contravening both COA rules and Republic Act No. 9184 on public bidding.

The cash advances were used to purchase relief goods and office supplies from Superama, even though such procurements should have undergone competitive bidding due to their high amounts (ranging from P15,000 to as high as P5,000,000).
The supporting documents presented to liquidate the advances were found to be spurious, inadequate, and inconsistent with the legal requirements.
The absence of proper invoicing, sequential recording of cash invoices, and proper distribution lists underscored the irregularity of the transactions.

Zaldy Uy Ampatuan, then Regional Governor, for failing to monitor the frequent and excessive cash advances.
Adham G. Patadon, as the Chief of Supply Division/Special Disbursing Officer, for drawing advances without a specific purpose and processing transactions in violation of the P15,000 cash limit.
Ulama M. Acad (Chief of Staff) and Oscar A. Sampaluna (Executive Secretary) for endorsing disbursements without adequate liquidation or prior settlement of previous advances.
Batolacongan D. Abdullah, Director, Finance, Budget, and Management Services, for certifying incomplete supporting documents.
Frederick C. Dedicatoria, Financial Audit Analyst III, for signing documents without evidencing delivery of the procured items.

Superama, although initially named as a liable party for the alleged transactions, was later absolved due to insufficient evidence of direct involvement.

The SAO findings led to the issuance of Notice of Disallowance (ND) No. ORG-12-002-MDS/LF (08 & 09) on January 13, 2012, which disallowed the cash advances as calculated.
Susan P. Garcia, Director IV of the SAO, affirmed the disallowance in Decision No. 2013-011, emphasizing violations of both cash advance procedures and public bidding requirements under RA 9184.
Petitioners (including Patadon, Acad, Abdullah, and Dedicatoria) appealed through the COA Director and later elevated their appeal to the COA Proper. However, the COA Proper, in Decision No. 2014-244 dated September 11, 2014, denied the petition on grounds of timeliness and lack of novel arguments, ultimately dismissing the case as unmeritorious.

Petitioners contended that due process was violated because they were not provided an opportunity to file a comment on the audit findings or confront the COA witnesses prior to the issuance of the ND.
They also argued that there was a failure to uphold the presumption of regularity in their official actions.
Conversely, the COA, supported by the Office of the Solicitor General, maintained that sufficient opportunities were afforded for them to present their defenses, and that the evidence substantiating the disallowance was both sufficient and credible.

Whether the petitioners were denied their right to be heard by not being allowed to file a comment or confront the COA’s witnesses before the issuance of the disallowance notice.
Whether the procedural steps taken by the COA (including the opportunity to file appeals) satisfy the requirements of procedural due process in administrative audit cases.

Whether the audit report and subsequent ND are supported by sufficient and credible evidence.
Whether the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties is valid in light of the evidence of repeated violations.

Whether the disallowance of the cash advances—given the excessive amounts and violation of COA Circular No. 97-002 and RA 9184—is proper as a matter of law.
Whether the transactions violated the limits on cash advances and bypassed the mandatory public bidding process.

Whether the roles of the officials involved (including those who approved, certified, and disbursed the funds) render them accountable for the disallowed amounts.
Whether their actions, or lack thereof, amount to negligence or malice, thus justifying their liability.