Case Summary (G.R. No. 213716)
Applicable Law
- Philippine Constitution (1987), Article IX-D
- Civil Code of the Philippines, Articles 1149, 1153, and 1108
- Presidential Decree No. 1445
Overview of the Case
This case arose from allegations of fraudulent financial transactions involving land acquisitions by the AFP-RSBS. The COA discovered discrepancies related to the purchase price of properties in Calamba, Laguna, leading to a considerable loss of government funds. The petitioner, Jose S. Ramiscal, argued against a Notice of Disallowance (ND) and a Notice of Charge (NC) issued against him, asserting that the claims were barred by prescription, COA lacked jurisdiction, and his resignation precluded further proceedings.
Background of Allegations
In response to concerns raised during congressional investigations, the COA initiated an audit of transactions involving the AFP-RSBS. It was found that Ramiscal, acting for the AFP-RSBS, approved a land purchase from Concord Resources, Inc. for P341,343,000, despite a recorded sale price of only P91,024,800, leading to substantial financial discrepancies impacting tax liabilities.
COA Findings
The COA's special audit team concluded that the AFP-RSBS had overpaid by P250,318,200 based on the inflated purchase price and highlighted failures to properly report capital gains and documentary stamp taxes, resulting in significant underpayment.
Preliminary Actions and Proceedings
The audit findings resulted in the issuance of ND No. 2010-07-084-(1996) and NC No. 2010-07-001-(1996) in 2010, directing Ramiscal and others to settle the amounts. Ramiscal's appeals to COA were denied, prompting him to seek judicial review.
Jurisdictional Arguments
Ramiscal argued that the COA's actions were time-barred under the Civil Code’s provisions on prescription. However, it was determined that the State’s right to recover public funds does not prescribe, as enshrined in Article 1108 of the Civil Code, which states that prescription does not run against the State.
Accrual of Cause of Action
The Supreme Court clarified that the COA's cause of action only accrued upon the request from the Ombudsman in 2004, therefore the issuance of ND and NC in 2010 fell within the permissible time frame.
Liability Post-Resignation
Ramiscal contended that he could not be subjected to COA proceedings due to his resignation and the pendency of criminal cases. The Court reaffirmed the threefold liability rule, distinguishing between civil, administrative, and criminal accountability, allowing for continued civil and administrative actions even post-resignation.
Jurisdiction Over National Revenue Taxes
The argument that COA lacked jurisdiction over tax matters was partially upheld. While COA could audit an
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 213716)
Petition Overview
- The case involves a petition for review on certiorari filed by Jose S. Ramiscal, Jr. against the Commission on Audit (COA).
- The petition challenges the COA's Decision dated September 13, 2012, which denied Ramiscal's appeal for exclusion from liability in Notice of Disallowance (ND) No. 2010-07-084-(1996) and Notice of Charge (NC) No. 2010-07-001-(1996).
- The subsequent Resolution dated May 6, 2014, was also contested, which denied Ramiscal's motion for reconsideration due to lack of merit.
- The case centers on allegations of irregularities in the acquisition of land by the Armed Forces of the Philippines Retirement and Separation Benefits System (AFP-RSBS).
Background of the Case
- During the 11th Congress (1998-2001), congressional committees investigated alleged anomalous land acquisitions by AFP-RSBS.
- The Deputy Ombudsman requested COA to audit AFP-RSBS transactions on April 29, 2004, leading to the formation of a Special Audit Team (SAT).
- The SAT uncovered that AFP-RSBS, represented by Ramiscal, purchased land from Concord Resources, Inc. with discrepancies in the recorded purchase price.
- Two deeds of sale were executed with differing amounts: one recorded with a purchase price of ₱91,024,800 and another showing ₱341,343,000, indicating overpayment by the government.
Findings of the Special Audit Team
- The SAT concluded that the true deed of sale was the one filed at the Registry of Deeds, revealing a significant loss of ₱250,318,200 due