Abpi v. Commission on Audit
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Razul K. Abpi served as the Caretaker of the Department of Public Works and Highways-Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (DPWH-ARMM) and concurrently as the Provincial Engineer of Maguindanao. In 2010, a Special Audit Team (SAT) was formed to review DPWH-ARMM's fund utilization and project implementation from January 2008 to December 2009. The audit revealed significant irregularities, including improper fund recording and utilization, and inefficient project management. Consequently, the SAT issued sixteen (16) Notices of Disallowance (NDs), totaling P846,536,603.80, holding petitioner accountable for approving disbursement vouchers, purchase orders, and requisition slips without adequate supporting documents, awarding contracts without public bidding, and certifying projects as completed despite deficiencies. Procedural History: Petitioner appealed the audit findings to the Office of the Special Audit Office (SAO) Director, asserting good faith and reliance on subordinates' certifications, and claiming his actions were merely ministerial. The SAO Director denied this appeal in SAO Decision No. 2013-001, ruling that petitioner's participation was not ministerial due to apparent deficiencies and that as Caretaker, he bore primary responsibility for DPWH-ARMM funds and property. Subsequently, petitioner filed a Petition for Review with the Commission on Audit (COA) Commission Proper. The COA, in its Decision No. 2016-297 dated October 19, 2016, dismissed the petition for review as it was filed out of time, rendering the NDs final and executory. A subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied by the COA in a Resolution dated January 29, 2020. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking to reverse the COA's Decision and Resolution. The petition argued that the COA committed grave abuse of discretion by sustaining the notices of disallowances based on an incomplete audit and by affirming petitioner's liability. However, the Supreme Court denied the petition, primarily finding it was filed out of time. The Court also noted defective verification and certification against forum shopping. Even if these procedural defects were overlooked, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COA, emphasizing the finality of the COA's decision due to the belated filing of the petition for review before the COA and the general policy of sustaining the findings of administrative bodies like the COA.
Issue(s)
Whether the COA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it sustained the notices of disallowances based on an incomplete audit, considering the timeliness of the Petition for Certiorari and the defective verification and certification against forum shopping. Whether the COA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it affirmed petitioner's liability for the notices of disallowances, considering the finality of the COA Decision and the absence of caprice or arbitrariness.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the Petition for Certiorari. The Court held that the petition was filed out of time, had defective verification and certification against forum shopping, and failed to show grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COA. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the COA were affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the Petition for Certiorari and the defective verification and certification against forum shopping: The Court reiterated that the belated filing of a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 is fatal. The 30-day reglementary period to appeal the COA Decision commenced upon petitioner's receipt of the Decision on November 9, 2018. The filing of an omnibus motion interrupted this period. Petitioner received the COA Resolution on March 10, 2020. Despite the intervening Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 31-2020 providing for an extension, petitioner filed his Petition for Certiorari on June 26, 2020, which was 39 days after the last day for filing. The Court found no compelling reason to relax the rules of procedure. The Court noted that the Petition for Certiorari was accompanied by a Manifestation that the Verification and Certification against Forum-Shopping were mere photocopies, with an undertaking to submit originals, which was not complied with. The Court emphasized that while verification is a formal requirement, a defect in the certification against forum shopping is generally not curable after filing, and its absence is sufficient ground for dismissal under Section 5, Rule 64 of the Rules of Court. On the finality of the COA Decision and the absence of caprice or arbitrariness: Even if procedural infirmities were disregarded, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion. The Court affirmed that factual findings of administrative bodies like the COA are afforded great weight and are conclusive in the absence of substantial showing of error. The COA acted in accordance with law and regulations in denying the Petition for Review and sustaining the NDs. The Court found that petitioner failed to show caprice or arbitrariness on the part of the COA. The COA's ruling was based on the SAO Report and Decision, which detailed the irregularities and petitioner's involvement. Petitioner's general arguments did not address the specific audit findings for each transaction. The Court stressed that petitioner's failure to seasonably file a Petition for Review before the COA of the SAO Decision rendered that decision final and executory. Under the doctrine of finality and immutability of judgment, a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, even if it contains erroneous conclusions of fact or law.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 64 must be filed within the reglementary period, and failure to do so, without compelling reason, is fatal. Procedural rules, including those governing the timeliness of appeals, are designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases and should be respected. Moreover, factual findings of administrative bodies like the Commission on Audit, when supported by substantial evidence, are generally conclusive and non-reviewable, absent a showing of grave abuse of discretion.