Title
Commission on Audit vs. Ferrer
Case
G.R. No. 218870
Decision Date
Nov 24, 2020
COA disallowed Php 23M in disbursements by Villafuerte; RTC improperly issued injunction. SC ruled COA has primary jurisdiction, NDs final due to failure to exhaust remedies.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 218870)

Factual Background and Notices of Disallowance

During his governorship, Villafuerte approved various contracts and payments, including:
• Architectural design services (₱1.74 M)
• Promotion of a sports event (₱11.52 M)
• Security services (₱6.31 M)
• Petty cash reimbursements (₱1.09 M)
• Mobilization fees for infrastructure projects (₱1.04 M total across several sites)
COA auditors found procurement and auditing irregularities under RA 9184 and COA Circular 2012-003 and issued ten NDs totaling approximately ₱23.41 M. Villafuerte did not appeal these NDs to the COA Commission Proper within six months, leading to NFDs.

Procedural History in the RTC

Villafuerte filed petitions for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for TRO and preliminary injunction. The RTC granted a TRO, later extended, and on November 7, 2014 issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the COA from executing the NDs. The auditors moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and non-exhaustion of administrative remedies, which the RTC denied on December 18, 2014. A motion for reconsideration was likewise denied on May 6, 2015.

Arguments of the Petitioners

  1. RTC lacked jurisdiction over COA disallowances.
  2. NDs became final and executory under PD 1445 and COA Rules.
  3. Villafuerte failed to exhaust administrative remedies before COA.
  4. Requisites for certiorari and prohibition were not met.
    They cautioned that allowing trial-court intervention would undermine COA’s enforcement and clog court dockets.

Arguments of the Private Respondent

Villafuerte contended that he was challenging only the provincial auditors’ actions, not COA Commission Proper decisions, thus justifying recourse to the RTC. He claimed grave and irreparable injury should he be compelled to reimburse government funds and asserted that the mobilization fees were valid under the contracts. He also alleged bias and lack of bad faith in authorizing the expenditures.

Issues for Resolution

Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in entertaining Villafuerte’s petitions despite COA’s primary jurisdiction and the finality of the NDs.

Primary Jurisdiction of the Commission on Audit

Under Article IX, Secs. 1–2 of the 1987 Constitution and Section 26 of PD 1445, COA has exclusive power to audit and settle accounts of government funds. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction requires that questions involving specialized auditing expertise be first resolved administratively by COA.

Exclusive Judicial Review by the Supreme Court

Article IX, Sec. 7 of the 1987 Constitution limits judicial review of COA decisions to certiorari petitions filed with the Supreme Court within 30 days from receipt of the COA decision. Trial courts have no authority to issue writs of certiorari against COA disallowances.

Nonapplication of Exceptions to Primary Jurisdiction

Villafuerte did not demonstrate any recognized exception (e.g., patently illegal act, unreasonable delay, purely legal question) that would warrant bypassing

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.