Celestino v. Auditor General
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Sixto Celestino sought payment for 7,926 boxes of ordinance items and 20 radial engines withdrawn by the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) from Ordinance Sub-Depot No. 6. These materials were part of surplus property transferred to the Philippine Government under the Roxas-Vegelback Agreement. The Government's policy was to satisfy its agencies' needs first. The AFP was authorized to earmark and withdraw combat materials from the depot. A clause in the negotiated offers explicitly excluded "All combat materials (military weapons, gun parts and accessories) that may be found." The AFP retained the right to screen items as buyers hauled them, segregating any combat materials found. Petitioner, representing the Fil-American Irregular Troops, purchased the remaining property in the depot for P42,000.00 plus tax. Petitioner signified written conformity to the condition that the AFP could screen and segregate combat materials. The sales invoice and tally-out sheet also contained the exclusion clause for combat materials. Procedural History: The AFP withdrew the disputed items approximately three months after the sale. Petitioner demanded payment, but the AFP refused, asserting ownership was never transferred. Petitioner's claim was denied by the Secretary of National Defense, the President, and subsequently the Auditor General. Petitioner appealed the Auditor General's decision to the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioner appealed the Auditor General's decision disallowing his claim for the withdrawn ordinance items and radial engines.
Issue(s)
Whether the appeal from the Auditor General's decision was perfected within the reglementary period. Whether the 7,926 boxes of ordinance items and 20 radial engines were included in the negotiated sale of Ordinance Sub-Depot No. 6 to the petitioner. Whether ownership of the withdrawn materials passed to the petitioner.
Ruling
The appealed decision of the Auditor General is affirmed. The claim of the petitioner is denied.
Ratio Decidendi
On the appeal period: The Court affirmed its prior resolution denying the motion to dismiss, holding that a motion for reconsideration of the Auditor General's decision suspends the running of the period for appeal, consistent with the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies and prior rulings of the Court. On the inclusion of combat materials in the sale: The Court found that the petitioner was clearly informed and agreed that all combat materials were excluded from the sale. This exclusion was explicitly stated in the negotiated offers, the sales invoice, and the tally-out sheet. The petitioner's written conformity to the AFP's right to screen and segregate combat materials further solidified this understanding. The relatively low purchase price of the depot, considering its original procurement cost, indicated that the sale was understood to be only for non-combat materials. On the transfer of ownership: Ownership of the 7,926 boxes of ordinance items and 20 radial engines did not pass to the petitioner because these items were expressly excluded from the sale as combat materials. The AFP's withdrawal of these materials was in accordance with the terms of the sale, to which the petitioner had agreed. The Court found that the ordinance items, including magazine accessories, spare parts, and oil accessories, and the radial engines used for tanks, clearly fell under the category of combat materials reserved for the AFP.
Main Doctrine
Ownership of combat materials, expressly excluded from a negotiated sale of surplus property and retained by the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) under specific conditions, does not pass to the buyer, even if such materials are later withdrawn by the AFP.