Title
Supreme Court
Patdu, Jr. vs. Commission on Audit
Case
G.R. No. 218461
Decision Date
Sep 14, 2021
DOTC's Davao Fishing Port project faced COA disallowances for exceeding cost estimates. SC ruled NGAO II Director's lifting of disallowance final, absolving project engineer Patdu of liability due to lack of bad faith or negligence.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 218461)

Factual Background

The project commenced in 1992 with multiple bids, wherein the EEI/Manalo Joint Venture emerged as the lowest bidder. By April 20, 1993, a construction contract was executed. During the project, the DOTC authorized several variation orders, leading to a total construction cost that exceeded COA’s initial estimated project cost. Notably, a Notice of Disallowance (ND) was issued against the project by COA Auditor on June 18, 1997, which disallowed an amount of approximately P54 million due to violations of cost estimation standards set by COA regulations.

Audit and Disallowance Process

The basis for the disallowance was the apparent excess in project costs as determined by the COA’s Special Task Force on Flagship Projects. The relevant regulations, particularly those articulated in the September 1991 COA Resolution, set strict thresholds for the acceptability of actual contract costs versus estimated costs. Following DOTC’s internal requests to reverse these decisions and subsequent assessments by COA, the original findings were partially lifted, although certain portions of the project costs remained disallowed.

COA Decisions

The initial audit findings were contested, and a subsequent series of endorsements by COA officials reflected a change in the treatment of the disallowance, putting into question the finality and applicability of earlier decisions. Petitioner Patdu asserted that the lifting of certain disallowances by COA was final and thus should not have been revisited nearly ten years later by COA Proper.

Issues Presented

The key legal issues revolve around the finality of the NGAO II Director's lifting of the disallowance, the applicability of the COA regulations pertaining to foreign-assisted projects, and whether the petitioner should face civil liability for the audit disallowances particularly relating to specific variation orders that he reviewed.

Court’s Ruling

The court ruled that the lifting of the disallowance by the NGAO II Director should have been regarded as final, immutable, and unalterable due to the absence of a conflicting appeal. Consequently, COA’s attempt to reverse or reinstate the disallowance after such an extended period constituted grave abuse of discretion.

On Civil Liability

The ruling further detailed that Patdu had not acted with bad faith or gross negligence in his review of the variation orders. Consequently, the evidence did not support a finding of civil liability on his part, especially given

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.