Case Summary (G.R. No. 222810)
Applicable Law
The pertinent laws influencing this ruling include the Local Government Code (LGC), specifically Section 350, which mandates that all expenditures incurred during a fiscal year should be accounted for in that same year. Additional references include the Administrative Code of 1987, particularly Sections 46, 47, and 48, concerning appropriations before entering contracts and the consequent liabilities of officers involved in unlawful contracts.
Facts of the Case
On June 2, 2011, the COA issued 12 Notices of Disallowance totaling P2,891,558.31, linked to various municipal projects from the years 2004, 2006, and 2007 which were financed with the 2010 budget. The execution of these projects was declared invalid due to a lack of the necessary appropriations at the time of their execution. The petitioners appealed the disallowances but were ultimately found to have filed their Petition for Review beyond the allowable period as per the COA's rules.
Procedural Background
The COA Regional Office upheld the Notices of Disallowance through Decision No. 2013-19, concluding that the municipality’s projects were void due to improper budget allocation. The petitioners subsequently filed for a review, which the COA Proper dismissed on the grounds of lack of timely payment of required filing fees. The petitioners contended that their fees were paid later than expected but asserted that the running of the period for filing should have been suspended upon their filing.
Issues Raised by the Petitioners
The petitioners raised several arguments, claiming that the COA's decision dismissed their appeal with grave abuse of discretion, citing irregularities on the COA's part and asserting the principle of quantum meruit, arguing that the government should compensate for services rendered under invalid contracts. They also referenced the Arias Doctrine, which posits that the head of an office should not be held liable for decisions made in good faith.
Ruling of the Court
The Court upheld the COA’s ruling, stating that the appeal was indeed filed out of time, given that the payment of the necessary filing fees was made belatedly—over 200 days after the petitioners received the disallowances. The Court reaffirms that adherence to procedural rules serves to uphold the orderly administration of justice, and procedural lapses such as those committed by the petitioners cannot be overlooked.
Substantive Grounds of the Decision
Moreover, the Court examined the substantive legal implications of the funding discrepancies, determining that the petitioner’s actions violated not only Section 350 of the LGC but also sections of the Administrative Code, making th
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 222810)
Facts of the Case
- Petitioners Clarito A. Poblete (former Municipal Mayor of Silang, Cavite), Ma. Dolores Jeaneth Bawalan (Municipal Budget Officer), and Nephtali V. Salazar (Municipal Accountant) were issued 12 Notices of Disallowance (ND) by the COA Audit Team amounting to ₱2,891,558.31.
- The disallowed amounts pertained to various municipal projects from 2004, 2006, and 2007 that were paid or appropriated under the 2010 municipal budget in violation of Section 350 of the Local Government Code (LGC).
- The petitioners were named liable and filed appeals to the COA Regional Office, which affirmed the disallowances citing lack of appropriation and certificate of availability of funds.
- A Petition for Review was filed with the COA Proper but was dismissed for being filed out of time due to late payment of the required filing fees.
- The petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the COA Proper.
Issue Presented
- Whether the Commission on Audit gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the Petition for Review for being filed out of the prescribed reglementary period due to the petitioners’ failure to timely pay the required filing fees.
Procedural Background
- COA Regional Office affirmed the Notices of Disallowance on grounds of violation of appropriation rules and nullity of contracts without proper appropriation and certification.
- The petitioners filed their Petition for Review out of time, causing dismissal by COA Proper.
- The petitioners argued the running of the prescriptive period should be suspended upon filing of appeal irrespective of payment date and asserted the filing fees requirement is not mandatory or jurisdictional.
- The COA maintained that payment of filing fees is a jurisdictional requirement and that the appeal was properly dismissed.
Ruling of the Supreme Court
- The Court upheld COA’s dismissal of the Petition for Review as timely payment of filing fees is mandatory to perfect an appeal under the COA Revised Rules of Procedure (2009 RRPC).
- The six-month appeal period begins from receipt of the decision appealed from and is suspended upon appeal filing only if accompanied by proof of payment of filing fees.
- Petitioners’ filing fees were paid 212 days after receipt of the ND, beyond the 180-day period, rendering the appeal unseasonable.
- Payment of filing fees is essential and viewed as a limitation of the right to appeal, a statutory privilege rather than a constitutional right.
- The Court refused to consider the COA Secretariat’s