Case Digest (G.R. No. 238671)
Facts:
Taisei Shimizu Joint Venture, G.R. No. 238671, March 7, 2022, Supreme Court En Banc, Lazaro‑Javier, J., wrote for the Court. Petitioner is Taisei Shimizu Joint Venture (TSJV); respondents are the Commission on Audit (COA) and the Department of Transportation (DOTr). TSJV sought relief by certiorari (filed under Rule 65 in relation to Rule 64) to annul COA Decision No. 2016‑395 (Dec. 21, 2016) and Resolution No. 2018‑047 (Jan. 22, 2018) in COA C.P. Case No. 2015‑622.
TSJV, a joint venture of Taisei Corporation and Shimizu Corporation, was awarded the contract for the New Iloilo Airport and contracted with the DOTr on March 15, 2004. After project completion some TSJV billings remained unpaid. TSJV filed a Request for Arbitration and Complaint with the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) (CIAC Case No. 26‑2014) seeking multiple monetary claims (including price escalation for imported materials, currency conversion loss, interest on delayed payment, price adjustments under Annex K, costs for extension of time, additional embankment costs, damages for failure to timely pay for aggregates, and attorney’s fees), aggregating to over Php2.3 billion in its Terms of Reference.
The CIAC issued a Final Award dated December 11, 2014 granting several claims in a total of Php223,401,870.83 plus six percent (6%) interest per annum from finality until full payment. On DOTr’s motion for correction, the CIAC issued an Order (Feb. 20, 2015) reducing the award to Php216,073,986.89 by deleting an input‑VAT component. When TSJV sought execution, DOTr opposed and banks and the Land Bank advised that COA approval was necessary before payment; garnishment attempts yielded no recoverable funds.
TSJV then filed a petition with the COA for enforcement and payment. The DOTr, through the OSG, admitted the arbitral proceedings and the amounts awarded (as modified). By COA Decision No. 2016‑395 (Dec. 21, 2016) COA approved payment but only to the extent of Php104,661,421.35, disallowing sizable portions of the CIAC award (Claims 1, 3, 5, and 8) on grounds including noncompliance with price‑adjustment approvals required by RA 9184, Sec. 61 and its IRR, lack of statutory authority to pay interest and EOT‑related costs, and Rule 142, Sec. 1 of the Rules of Court disallowing costs against the Republic. TSJV’s motion for reconsideration was denied by COA Resolution No. 2018‑047 (Jan. 22, 2018). COA Chairperson Michael G. Aguinaldo dissented at the administrative level, arguing COA could not set aside a final ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does the Commission on Audit have exclusive jurisdiction over money claims due from or owing to the government?
- In the exercise of its audit power, may the COA disturb or modify final and executory decisions of courts, tribunals, or other ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)