Case Digest (G.R. No. 261207)
Facts:
Topbest Printing Corporation v. Gemora, G.R. No. 261207, August 22, 2023, the Supreme Court En Banc, Singh, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Topbest Printing Corporation (represented by Shirley L. Dionisio) challenged the issuance by the Commission on Audit (COA) — specifically Director Sofia C. Gemora, Supervising Auditor Edna P. Salaguban, and Audit Team Leader Fahad Bin Abdul Malik N. Tomawis — of Notice of Disallowance No. 19-001-207542-17 and COA National Government Audit Sector (NGAS) Decision No. 2022-014, alleging grave abuse of discretion and seeking relief by certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.In 2016 the National Printing Office (NPO) awarded to Topbest a contract and executed an Equipment Lease Agreement (ELA) for one unit 4-Stations Web/Continuous Form Machine (contract price: ₱49,500,000). The ELA provided that the leased machines be in tip-top running condition, be manned/operated by NPO operators assigned at the lessor’s premises, and that maintenance and repair expenses be for the account of the lessor. On July 10, 2017, the NPO issued an Invitation for a Joint Venture to augment printing capacity; Topbest submitted a proposal and received a Notice of Award dated September 13, 2017 for Lot 2 of the project.
COA’s Audit Observation Memorandum dated October 16, 2017 flagged repeated subcontracting of printing services by NPO in the guise of ELAs, referencing Government Procurement Policy Board (GPPB) Resolution No. 05-2010 which prohibits recognized government printers from subcontracting printing services. On January 22, 2019, the COA Audit Team issued the Notice of Disallowance disallowing payments to twelve private printers (including Topbest) covering April–December 2017, totaling ₱499,376,515.60, and stating Topbest’s liability for rental fees.
Topbest received the Notice of Disallowance on February 8, 2019 and, within the six‑month COA appeal period, filed an Appeal Memorandum dated August 5, 2019 (received August 6, 2019) to Director Gemora. The COA‑NGAS denied the appeal, holding that the transactions were actually subcontracting (not mere leases) — citing the observed payment scheme (85% to private printer / 15% to NPO) and a Technical Evaluation Report — and affirmed liability (₱6,039,057.54). Topbest received Director Gemora’s Decision on May 24, 2022.
Rather than appeal to the COA Commission Proper under Rule VII of the COA Rules of Procedure, Topbest filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court on June 23, 2022, arguing that it effectively had no time (one day by its calculation) to file a petition for review with the COA Commission Proper and that COA acted with grave abuse of discretion and deprived it of due process. The Office of the Solicitor General (for the respondents) moved to dism...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did Topbest avail the correct remedy when it filed a Rule 64 petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court instead of appealing the COA‑NGAS Director’s decision to the COA Commission Proper?
- Did the COA respondents act with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the Notice of Disallowance and affirming it in CO...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)