Case Digest (G.R. No. 252658)
Facts:
Tiburcio L. Canlas, G.R. No. 252658, December 05, 2023, the Supreme Court En Banc, Kho, Jr., J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Canlas assails the Commission on Audit (COA) Proper decisions denying his Supplemental Petition for Exclusion from Persons Liable and related pleadings.On November 8, 2010, the Department of Public Works and Highways requested a Special Audit Team (SAT) to audit Region 3 projects. The SAT, led by State Auditor IV Josefina Y. Guevarra, audited projects in Pampanga (including Angeles City Sub‑District Engineering Office) and found implementation deficiencies (shortfalls in asphalted area and thermoplastic markings, incomplete excavation works, and overstated quantities). The SAT issued Notices of Disallowance (NDs) dated October 21, 2011, disallowing PHP 27,261,986.85 and naming Canlas and seven others (collectively, Reguyal et al.) as liable.
Reguyal et al. (except Canlas) appealed to COA Regional Office No. III (COA RO3) on July 25, 2012. COA RO3 issued Decision No. 2013-57 on June 11, 2013, dismissing their appeal; the decision was received June 28, 2013. On July 11, 2013, Canlas joined Reguyal et al. in filing a Petition for Review (the 2013 Petition) before COA Proper. While that petition was pending, Canlas separately filed a Supplemental Petition with COA Proper on July 24, 2014.
COA Proper issued Decision No. 2018-425 dated December 21, 2018, denying the Supplemental Petition as filed out of time and for lack of merit, counting the six‑month reglementary period from Canlas’s receipt of the COA RO3 decision and concluding the Supplemental Petition was filed beyond 180 days. Canlas moved for reconsideration; COA Proper denied it in Resolution No. 2020-132 dated January 27, 2020. Separately, COA Proper issued Decision dated January 6, 2020 denying the 2013 Petition as filed beyond the six‑month period and for lack of merit, thus rendering the COA RO3 decision final and executory under PD 1445 and th...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the COA Proper commit grave abuse of discretion by finding the Supplemental Petition filed out of time?
- Did the COA Proper commit grave abuse of discretion in rendering the Supplemental Petition and related pleadings without merit—specifically, in holding Canlas liable and in violating his...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)