Title
Abpi vs. Commission on Audit
Case
G.R. No. 252367
Decision Date
Jul 14, 2020
A retired DPWH-ARMM official challenged COA's disallowance of P846M due to procurement irregularities, but the Supreme Court upheld COA's findings, citing procedural lapses and lack of grave abuse of discretion.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 252367)

Relevant Facts

Abpi was concurrently the Provincial Engineer of Maguindanao and the Caretaker of DPWH-ARMM from 03 October 2005 until his retirement in 2012. The COA initiated a Special Audit Team (SAT) to evaluate the utilization and management of funds from January 2008 to December 2009. The SAT uncovered improper utilization and management of funds, leading to multiple NDs. Abpi's role as an approving officer involved signing various documents, awarding contracts without public bidding, and certifying project completions with deficiencies.

Initial Appeals and COA Findings

On 14 June 2013, Abpi contested the audit findings through an Appeal Memorandum, asserting his good faith reliance on subordinate certifications. The SAT had earlier issued NDs due to apparent documentation deficiencies. The COA’s Special Audits Office later denied the appeal, maintaining that Abpi’s actions could not be considered merely ministerial, given the existing deficiencies, thus holding him accountable.

COA Decision on Review and Finality

On 19 October 2016, the COA dismissed Abpi's Petition for Review as it was filed out of time, upholding the NDs. Despite ruling the appeal as untimely, COA Chairperson Michael Aguinaldo indicated in a separate opinion that the disallowance amount could be adjusted if materials were delivered or work completed. Following this, a notice confirming the finality of the decision was issued on 28 February 2018.

Further Appeals and COA Resolution

Abpi filed an Omnibus Motion for reconsideration and exclusion from liability, which the COA denied on 29 January 2020, asserting that the appeal had been made too late and that the audit findings were sufficient to deem the transactions irregular. The COA distinguished Abpi’s role as more than just an approving authority, noting his direct participation in the transactions.

Jurisdictional Issues and Legal Analysis

The issues revolved around whether the COA abused its discretion in sustaining the NDs and affirming Abpi's liability. The Supreme Court ruled against Abpi, finding procedural flaws in his petition, including its belated nature, lack of proper verification, and failure to substantiate claims of grav

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.