Daraga Press v. Commission on Audit
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Daraga Press, Inc. (DPI) filed a money claim for ₱63,638,032.00 for textbooks allegedly delivered in 1998 to the Department of Education-Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (DepEd-ARMM). The claim was based on Section 19 of Republic Act No. 9401 (General Appropriations Act of 2007), which allows the DBM to approve payment of valid prior years unbooked obligations. The DBM requested the COA to validate the claim. Procedural History: The COA created a team to validate the obligation. An Assistant Commissioner expressed doubts due to the inability to ascertain actual receipt. DPI filed its money claim. The COA's Fraud Audit and Investigation Office (FAIO) conducted further validation, corroborating initial doubts. The COA denied the money claim, citing lack of convincing proof of delivery, violations of internal control (segregation of duties), and absence of the transaction in audited financial statements. The COA also noted discrepancies in Purchase Orders (POs), Sales Invoices (SIs), Delivery Receipts (DRs), Certifications from Sulpicio Lines, reports on receipt and acceptance, inspection reports, and differing quantities of books. Furthermore, the Special Allotment Release Order (SARO) cited by DPI was for personal services (salaries), not for textbooks. DPI's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: DPI filed a Petition for Certiorari, assailing the COA's decision and resolution, arguing that the COA committed grave abuse of discretion by denying the claim based on mere doubt, despite alleged available funds and supporting certifications from officials. DPI also invoked the principle of quantum meruit.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent COA committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner DPI’s money claim. Whether there was substantial evidence to prove the actual delivery of the subject textbooks. Whether the principle of quantum meruit applies in this case. Whether there was a valid appropriation for the purchase of the subject textbooks.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the respondent COA are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion: The Court held that the COA committed no grave abuse of discretion. The denial of DPI's money claim was supported by the evidence on record. Grave abuse of discretion requires an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or acting based on caprice rather than law and evidence. The COA's decision was based on a thorough review of documents and findings from its audit teams, not on arbitrary judgment. The Court reiterated that decisions of the COA are accorded great respect and finality in the absence of grave abuse of discretion. On the issue of substantial evidence for delivery: The Court found that DPI failed to present substantial evidence proving the actual delivery of the textbooks. Numerous inconsistencies, discrepancies, and inaccuracies were noted in the submitted documents, including POs with different amounts and undated receipts, SIs and DRs with similar serial numbers but different signatories, conflicting certifications from Sulpicio Lines, contradictory reports on receipt and acceptance, and differing quantities of books. These issues cast serious doubt on the authenticity and veracity of the transaction. The Court also noted that DPI provided two different explanations for the duplicate SIs and DRs, further undermining its claim. On the applicability of quantum meruit: The Court ruled that the principle of quantum meruit does not apply. This equitable principle allows recovery for services rendered or goods delivered to the extent of their reasonable value. However, it presupposes that an actual delivery or performance has been made. Since DPI failed to convincingly prove the actual delivery of the textbooks, the basis for applying quantum meruit was absent. The COA correctly denied the claim on this ground as well. On the existence of appropriation: The Court affirmed the COA's finding that there was no appropriation for the purchase of the subject textbooks. The SARO cited by DPI was for personal services (salaries of teachers), not for textbooks. This lack of appropriation violates Section 29(1), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, which states that no money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law. The claim that funds were inadvertently reverted due to double obligation under Personal Service was also found to be unsubstantiated by the COA's review of the relevant SAROs and NCAs.
Main Doctrine
The Commission on Audit (COA) did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying a money claim where the claimant failed to present substantial evidence of the actual delivery of goods, evidenced by numerous inconsistencies and discrepancies in supporting documents, and where there was no appropriation for the purchase.