Case Summary (G.R. No. 218240)
Applicable Law
The case is governed by the 1987 Philippine Constitution and relevant statutory provisions, particularly the Government Auditing Code under Presidential Decree No. 1445. This law stipulates the procedures for appealing the decisions of auditors, including the six-month reglementary period for filing appeals against NDs issued by auditors of government agencies.
Procedural History
After an audit, the COA issued several NDs to the DCWD, which included disallowances on various amounts due to payments lacking legal justifications as outlined in specific laws and circulars. Paluca was held liable in multiple instances as a signatory to the vouchers. The NDs were received by the DCWD at various dates, and subsequent to their issuance, an attorney was engaged to address the NDs. However, it was noted that only one appeal was formally pursued, leading to a lapse in the deadline for the remaining NDs.
Findings of the COA and Regional Legal Adjudication Office
The COA's Decision No. 2015-005 reiterated the finding that many of the disallowed transactions indeed lacked legal basis, affirming earlier decisions of the Regional Legal and Adjudication Office (RLAO) which had determined that a timely appeal was not made. The COA subsequently dismissed Paluca’s petition, citing that it was filed outside the statutory period of six months as specified by the governing laws.
Legal Arguments Presented
Petitioner Paluca argued that the negligence of his counsel should exempt him from the consequences of the late filing. He referenced legal precedents that support the notion that a client should not be bound by their counsel's mistakes, particularly if such negligence causes serious injustice. However, the Court maintained that the general rule binding a client to their counselor's mistakes applied here since Paluca did not actively follow up on the status of the appeals nor demonstrated that he regularly assessed the progress of his case.
Court's Rationale and Final Decision
The Court emphasized the principle that a client must remain vigilant and engaged with their counsel, making inquiries about the status of legal proceedings. Absent evidence of due diligence, the mere act of endorsing the case to an attorney does not relieve the client o
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 218240)
Case Background
- The case revolves around a Petition for Certiorari filed under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65, by Engr. Pablito S. Paluca against the Commission on Audit (COA).
- The petition seeks to annul COA Decision No. 2015-005 dated January 28, 2015, which denied Paluca's appeal and upheld several Notices of Disallowance (NDs) concerning payments made by the Dipolog City Water District (DCWD).
- The NDs in question include disallowances from 2006 and 2008, totaling approximately P4,751,987.71.
Notices of Disallowance
- The NDs were issued following an audit by the COA, citing various reasons for disallowance, including lack of legal basis for the payments and failure to obtain necessary approvals.
- Specific NDs included:
- ND 2007-011: Disallowance for Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) and Amelioration Assistance for 1993-1996.
- ND 2007-001 to 004: Disallowance for health care payments, COLA, uniform allowances, bonuses, and provident fund contributions for 2006.
- ND DCWD 2008-001 to 004: Similar disallowances for 2003 and 2004 payments.
Procedural History
- Following the receipt of the NDs, DCWD allegedly endorsed the disallowances to Atty. Ric Luna for action; however, only one ND was appealed.
- The COA rece