Buisan v. Commission on Audit
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In 1989, the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) initiated the construction of the Liguasan Cut-off Channel in Maguindanao to mitigate persistent flooding. Following the project's premature opening, landowners submitted claims in April 2001 for damages allegedly sustained by their properties, crops, and improvements. Investigations by the DPWH Regional Office XII and a Technical Working Group in 2004 recommended compensation, but the significant time lapse hindered the precise quantification of damages. An ad hoc committee formed in 2006 also failed to reach a final resolution due to insufficient evidence and the passage of time, leading to the claims being forwarded to the Commission on Audit (COA) for proper jurisdiction. Procedural History: On April 14, 2010, the petitioners, represented by Mayor Bai Annie C. Montawal, filed a petition with the COA seeking P122,051,850.00 from the DPWH for the alleged damages. A motion to dismiss was filed by some claimants, including Madag Buisan, questioning Montawal's authority to represent them and noting that they had filed a separate petition for the same claim. The DPWH argued that the petitioners failed to prove ownership of the damaged properties and that the claims had prescribed. In a Decision dated November 20, 2012, the COA denied the claims, citing laches and prescription under Article 1146 of the Civil Code. A subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied by Resolution dated February 14, 2014. The Petition: The petitioners seek a review of the COA's decision and resolution via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65, of the Rules of Court. They contend that the COA gravely abused its discretion in finding their claims barred by laches and prescription. The petition also raises the issue of the DPWH's immunity from suit. However, the Supreme Court noted that the petition failed to comply with the rules on certification against forum shopping, as the certification was signed by an individual whose authority to represent the petitioners was questionable and not supported by a Special Power of Attorney. Furthermore, the Court found that the DPWH, as a governmental entity performing its mandated functions, is insulated from such claims by the doctrine of non-suability, and that the claims were indeed barred by prescription and laches due to the excessive delay in their assertion.
Issue(s)
Whether the COA gravely abused its discretion in finding that the petitioners' claim was barred by laches and prescription. Whether the petition should be dismissed for failure to comply with the rules on certification against forum shopping. Whether the DPWH, as a governmental entity exercising governmental functions, is immune from suit for damages.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court affirmed the Decision dated November 20, 2012 and Resolution dated February 14, 2014 of the Commission on Audit in COA CP Case No. 2010-089.
Ratio Decidendi
On the claims being barred by prescription and laches, and the COA's discretion in denying the claims: The Court affirmed the COA's ruling that the petitioners' cause of action had prescribed and was barred by laches. The claims were filed 15 years after the alleged damage occurred in 1989, exceeding the four-year prescriptive period for actions based on injury to rights or quasi-delicts under Article 1146 of the Civil Code. The Court noted the difficulty in verifying stale claims due to the lapse of time. Laches was also present, as the petitioners failed to assert their rights for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, despite the DPWH's potential need to defend itself. The COA's jurisdiction over such money claims was also highlighted, emphasizing the need for timely filing. Even if procedural issues were set aside, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COA. The COA's denial was grounded on factual findings, including inconsistencies in the petitioners' evidence, such as conflicting declarations of land use, estimated rather than actual quantities of damaged crops, instances of multiple claimants for the same lot, lots not appearing on the parcellary map, and the lack of land titles to prove ownership. The DPWH's construction of the Project was considered a governmental function for which it could not be held liable. The Court deferred to the COA's expertise and factual findings, which were supported by the evidence on record. On the failure to comply with the rules on certification against forum shopping: The Court held that the petition must be dismissed for failure to comply with Section 5 of Rule 64 of the Rules of Court, which requires a sworn certification against forum shopping. The certification was signed by Montawal, who lacked a Special Power of Attorney and whose authority to represent the petitioners was questioned. The Court emphasized that for natural persons, the certification must be signed by the parties themselves or their counsel, as they are best aware of pending similar actions. Montawal's bare statement of being an attorney-in-fact was insufficient, and the absence of compelling reasons warranted dismissal. On the doctrine of non-suability of the State: The Court reiterated the fundamental principle that the State cannot be sued without its consent, as provided in Article XVI, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution. The DPWH, as the State's engineering and construction arm, exercises governmental functions, and the construction of the Project was within its mandated duties. The Court found no indication that the State had given its consent, expressly or impliedly, to be sued for damages related to the Project. Therefore, the DPWH was insulated from suit by the doctrine of non-suability.
Main Doctrine
The failure to comply with the rules on certification against forum shopping is a sufficient ground for the dismissal of a petition. Furthermore, claims against the State, particularly those involving governmental functions like infrastructure projects, are subject to the doctrine of non-suability unless consent is expressly or impliedly given. Claims for damages against government agencies are also subject to prescription and laches, requiring timely assertion and substantial evidence.