Title
Makil vs. Commission on Audit
Case
G.R. No. 217342
Decision Date
Oct 13, 2020
CDC and Grand Duty Free preterminated a lease, splitting fire insurance proceeds 50-50. COA disallowed the disbursement, but SC ruled it valid, citing due process violations, inapplicability of the Insurance Code, and no government loss.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 217342)

Background and Lease Agreement Details

In 1995, CDC, as a subsidiary of the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA), entered into a 25-year lease agreement with Amari Duty Free for a parcel of land in Pampanga. The agreement stipulated rental payments based on minimum guaranteed payments or a percentage of gross revenues, along with an obligation to improve the leased property. Following corporate changes, Amari became Grand Duty Free, which constructed a two-story building on the property.

Fire Incident and Insurance Proceeds

In December 2005, a fire destroyed the original structure, prompting Grand Duty Free to request a moratorium on rental payments due to business interruptions. The CDC authorized this moratorium until December 2007. Subsequently, Grand Duty Free sought to establish a new business at the same site but faced additional compliance requirements from CDC, including proposals for demolishing the fire-damaged structure and submitting construction plans.

Pretermination of Lease Agreement

Negotiations between CDC and Grand Duty Free culminated in the pretermination of the lease agreement, which entailed a 50-50 sharing of the insurance proceeds from the fire. The CDC Board approved this arrangement, which included conditions on the release of funds contingent upon settling utility bills and obtaining clearances from relevant authorities.

COA's Notice of Disallowance

The Commission on Audit later issued Notice of Disallowance No. 2008-10-03, deeming the disbursement of insurance proceeds contrary to the lease agreement and stating that the CDC was entitled to 100% of the proceeds. Several individuals, including the petitioners, were found liable under this notice. The COA contended that the payment arrangement breached the leasing agreement and the Insurance Code, which mandates that insurance proceeds should benefit the party with insurable interest.

Appeals and COA Regional Director's Ruling

The petitioners appealed the disallowance to the COA Regional Director, who upheld the COA's notice, reaffirming that the CDC held exclusive rights to the insurance proceeds, as the damage fell within the parameters of the lease agreement’s obligations.

Decision by the COA Proper

Upon further appeal to the COA Proper, the decision to uphold the disallowance was affirmed. The COA Proper stressed the interpretation of the lease agreement that designated CDC as the sole beneficiary of the insurance proceeds because the loss pertained to its property interest, further declaring that the pretermination of the agreement did not negate CDC’s vested rights.

Petition for Certiorari

The petitioners subsequently filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing that the CDC’s decision to preterminate the lease was valid and improved its business prospects. They also contended that the insurance proceeds sharing arrangement was justifiable given the mutual agreement between the parties.

Supreme Court Resolution

Initially, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and subsequent motions for reconsideration, leading the petitioners to file a second motion for reconsideration. The Court revisited the case, evaluating procedural due process concerns and the COA's alleged grave abuse of discretion.

COA's Jurisdiction and Due Process Issues

The Supreme Court found that the COA had not adequately specified the grounds

...continue reading

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