Case Summary (G.R. No. 249351-52)
Applicable Law and Procedural Background
This case arises under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as Sto. Cristo Construction seeks a petition for certiorari to contest the COA’s decision affirming the disallowance. The proceedings are governed by the 1987 Philippine Constitution due to the decision being post-1990.
Summary of Facts
In 2010, Sto. Cristo Construction was awarded government contracts for road rehabilitation projects in Mexico, Pampanga. Following project completion, the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Quality Assurance Unit (QAU) conducted inspections which revealed overstatements in embankment materials used in the project, leading to the issuance of several notices of disallowance totaling approximately PHP 22 million, with ND No. 11-001-101-09/10 disallowing PHP 14,926,319.76. The audit findings implicated multiple DPWH officials alongside Cruz, attributing significant deficiencies to alleged errors in estimating embankment materials.
COA Decisions and Appeals
Cruz and other implicated officials appealed the disallowance, arguing that a previous pre-audit clearance and subsequent rectifications made in light of adverse findings from QAU inspections should negate the disallowance. Despite these claims, the COA Regional Office upheld the disallowances, stating that the audits conducted post-completion revealed discrepancies that warranted such actions.
COA's Final Ruling
In Decision No. 2018-317, the COA affirmed the necessary reimbursements, finding insufficient evidence to validate the rectifications claimed by Cruz. It also emphasized the irrelevance of rectification claims to the original disallowance reason, which was grounded in overestimations during the project’s engineering phase and ultimately the excessive use of public funds.
Arguments of the Parties
Cruz contended that the COA’s decision constituted grave abuse of discretion, claiming that COA did not properly consider evidence of rectification works, and maintained a violation of due process concerning his right to fair notice. The COA, on the other hand, argued that the absence of formal acknowledgment of the rectifications during the appeals process undermined Cruz’s claims.
Court's Analysis and Findings
The Court held that no grave abuse of discretion occurred, noting that Cruz failed to demonstrate that the COA acted in excess of its jurisdiction or arbitrarily disregarded evidence. The perceived rectifications did
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 249351-52)
Case Overview
- Court: Supreme Court of the Philippines
- Case Number: G.R. No. 246777
- Date of Decision: March 02, 2021
- Petitioner: Sto. Cristo Construction, represented by Noel J. Cruz
- Respondent: Commission on Audit (COA)
Nature of the Petition
- The petition is for certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
- It challenges the COA's Decision No. 2018-317 dated March 15, 2018, which affirmed Notice of Disallowance (ND) No. 11-001-101-09/10 dated July 11, 2011.
- The ND disallowed payments amounting to P14,926,319.76 due to overestimation of embankment materials in various road projects.
Background Facts
- Sto. Cristo Construction is a domestic corporation engaged in construction.
- In 2010, it was awarded contracts for road rehabilitation projects in Mexico, Pampanga.
- Quality Assurance Unit (QAU) of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) reassessed the projects and found adverse results, leading to further inspection by COA technical inspectors.
- The inspection revealed overstatements in embankment materials, prompting the issuance of four notices of disallowance totaling P22,626,714.71, with ND No. 11-001-101-09/10 being the subject of the case.
Findings of the COA
- The COA's audit revealed that the total volume of overestimated embankment materials amounted to 31,491.60 cubic meters.
- The disallowance was based on the non-compliance with proper estimation procedures during the detailed engineering phase, which