Case Summary (G.R. No. 132681)
Relevant Dates and Applicable Law
- Construction of Liguasan Cut-off Channel: 1989
- Initial claims presented: 2001
- Petition filed with COA: April 14, 2010
- COA Decision denying claims: November 20, 2012
- COA Resolution denying reconsideration: February 14, 2014
- Supreme Court Decision: January 31, 2017
Applicable law: 1987 Philippine Constitution, Civil Code Article 1146 on prescription, COA Rules of Procedure (2009 Revised Rules), Commonwealth Act No. 327 as amended by PD No. 1445.
Background and Factual Summary
In 1989, DPWH constructed the Liguasan Cut-off Channel to address recurring flooding in Tunggol, Pagalungan, Maguindanao. Subsequently, landowners claimed extensive damages to crops, properties, and improvements attributed to the premature opening of the project. Initial investigations by DPWH regional office and a technical working group acknowledged damage but could not confirm exact quantities due to the passage of time. An ad hoc committee failed to reach a conclusive determination. The claims were transferred to COA jurisdiction based on procedural rules regarding government claims.
Petition for Review and Procedural Issues
The petitioners, through Mayor Montawal as their representative, filed a petition for review before the COA for payment amounting to P122,051,850.00. Shortly thereafter, a Motion to Dismiss was filed by another claimant contending Montawal lacked authority to represent the petitioners. The DPWH answered denying ownership and causation, and raised prescription of the claims.
COA Findings and Ruling
COA denied the claims for lack of merit, holding that the claims were barred by laches and prescription, citing Article 1146 of the Civil Code requiring actions be filed within four years from the cause of action. COA emphasized that the claims were filed only after 15 years and that no substantial evidence established the petitioners' ownership or quantifiable damage. The motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.
Issues on Certification Against Forum Shopping and Representation
The Supreme Court held that the petition failed to comply with the certification against forum shopping requirement under Rule 64, Section 5 and Rule 46, Section 3 of the Rules of Court. The certification was signed by Mayor Montawal, who was not a party and whose authority was contested, without a special power of attorney from the petitioners. The Court underscored that the certification must be signed by the petitioners themselves or their lawyers, and the non-compliance warranted dismissal.
Doctrine of Non-Suability of the State and Government Agencies
The Court reiterated that under the 1987 Constitution, the State cannot be sued without its consent. DPWH, as a governmental agency performing a governmental function, enjoys immunity from suit and monetary liability unless the State expressly consents. Since no such consent was alleged or proven, the petitioners’ claims were fatally defective on this ground alone.
Prescription and Laches in Claims Against Government
The petitioners’ cause of action arose in 1989 or, at the latest, 1992, but claims were formally filed only in 2004 and brought before COA in 2010, far exceeding the four-year prescriptive period under Article 1146 of the Civil Code applicable to quasi-delict claims. Laches, defined as the unreasonable delay to assert a right, was likewise present given the 15-year gap before formal claim assertion, coupled with the absence of notice to DPWH which deprived it of a timely opportunity to defend.
COA’s Substantive Findings on Evidence and Claims
The COA’s assessment identified multiple inconsistencies and discrepancies: conflicting ownership claims over the same lots, exaggerated and estimated numbers of fruit trees purportedly damaged, absence of documentary evidence such as land titles, geographic inconsistencies indicating flooding caused by natural river courses rather than the project, and outdated or undated declarations. COA concluded that these deficiencies undermined the petitioners’ claims substantially.
Importance of COA’s Jurisdiction and Discretion
The Court recognized COA’s exclusive jurisdiction over money claims against government agencies pursuant to Commonwealth Act No. 327 and the 2009 Revised Rules of Procedure of COA. Given its constitutional mandate to safeguard public funds, COA’s discretion in determining the propriety and validity of
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 132681)
Case Background and Parties Involved
- The case involves petitioners Madag Buisan, et al., represented by Bai Annie C. Montawal, mayor of Montawal, Maguindanao, against respondents Commission on Audit (COA) and the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH).
- Petitioners sought payment of P122,051,850.00 as compensation for alleged damages to their crops, properties, and improvements caused by the premature opening of the Liguasan Cut-off Channel Project in Tunggol, Pagalungan, Maguindanao.
- The COA, in COA CP Case No. 2010-089, denied the money claims and the subsequent motion for reconsideration, prompting the petitioners to file a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 64 and Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
Factual Antecedents
- DPWH constructed the Liguasan Cut-off Channel in 1989 to alleviate perennial flooding.
- In April 2001, DPWH received damage claims from landowners alleging property damage due to the project's premature opening.
- DPWH Regional Office No. XII and a Technical Working Group recommended just compensation in 2004 but noted the difficulty in physically verifying damaged crops and properties after so many years.
- An ad hoc committee was formed in 2006 to assess the claims’ legality and propriety but made no final resolution due to insufficient evidence and elapsed time.
- Claims were then referred to the COA since they fell under its jurisdiction per the 2009 Revised Rules of Procedure of the COA.
- Petitioners formally filed their claims with the COA on April 14, 2010, while a Motion to Dismiss was filed by Buisan challenging Montawal’s authority to represent the group.
- DPWH defended by asserting lack of ownership proof, causation evidence, and prescription of the cause of action.
Issues Presented
- Whether the COA gravely abused its discretion in finding that petitioners’ claim was barred by laches and prescription.
- Whether the petition complied with the procedural requirements, especially the certification against forum shopping.
- The applicability of the Doctrine of Non-Suability of the State to the claims against DPWH.
Procedural Posture
- COA denied the claims and motion for reconsideration citing laches and prescription.
- Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by the petitioners before the Supreme Court.
- Supreme Court reviewed both procedural and substantive issues.
Supreme Court’s Ruling on Procedural Requirements
- The petition was dismissed for failure to comply with the certification against forum shopping, a mandatory requirement under Section 5, Rule 64 and Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court.
- The certification was signed by Montawal, who was not one of the petitioners and whose authority was questioned by the petitioners themselves.
- The certification was not signed by the petitioners or their counsel, violating the rule that natural persons themselves must sign this certification.
- No special power of attorney was