Department of Social Welfare and Development v. Commission on Audit
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) Field Office No. 10 sought to continue its engagement of Atty. Melanie D. Ortiz-Rosete as its private legal retainer for the period of January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2017. This followed previous engagements in 2015 and 2016, which had received the Solicitor General's approval and the Commission on Audit's (COA) concurrence. The DSWD executed a Contract of Service for 2017, and subsequently requested the Solicitor General's approval, which was granted on May 22, 2017. A request for COA concurrence was later made on January 5, 2018. Procedural History: The COA Legal Retainer Review (LRR) denied the DSWD's request for concurrence due to the belated application, as the request was made after the contract period had already expired. The COA LRR emphasized that prior concurrence is a prerequisite for hiring private legal counsel. The DSWD moved for reconsideration before the COA Proper, citing reasons such as the scarcity of central office lawyers, the expertise and trust developed with Atty. Ortiz-Rosete, the Solicitor General's approval, a favorable recommendation from a COA Director, and previous concurrences for earlier contracts. The COA Proper denied this motion, affirming the LRR's ruling and deeming the expenditure irregular due to the lack of prior written conformities from the Solicitor General and the COA. The Petition: The DSWD filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing the COA Commission Proper's Decision No. 2020-334. The petition argued that the COA Proper committed grave abuse of discretion by not concurring in the 2017 contract due to the lack of required prior written conformities. The DSWD contended that exceptional circumstances and the necessity of Atty. Ortiz-Rosete's engagement justified the hiring, and that previous concurrences and the Solicitor General's approval should have been considered. The Supreme Court, however, found the petition to be without merit, noting the DSWD's failure to comply with the timeliness and completeness requirements for securing prior approvals, and that the justifications provided did not excuse the procedural lapses.
Issue(s)
Whether the Commission on Audit (COA) Proper committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the request for concurrence in the 2017 Contract of Service. Whether the previous concurrences for 2015 and 2016 or the favorable recommendation of a COA Director dispense with the requirement for a formal COA Proper concurrence for the 2017 contract.
Ruling
The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition for lack of merit and AFFIRMED the COA Proper Decision.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Issue of Grave Abuse of Discretion: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion because the COA Proper merely applied the clear provisions of COA Circular No. 86-255. The rule explicitly requires that the written concurrence of the COA shall 'first be secured before the hiring or employment of a private lawyer.' In this case, the DSWD's request was not only belated but was filed after the contract had already been fully executed and expired. The Court emphasized that for a Rule 64 petition to prosper, the petitioner must show that the COA acted in a whimsical, capricious, or arbitrary manner, which the DSWD failed to do. The DSWD's arguments regarding the necessity of the services were deemed mere errors of judgment, which are not correctible by certiorari. Furthermore, the Court distinguished this from the PSALM v. COA case, noting that the DSWD's own negligence in filing the request caused the lack of concurrence. On the Effect of Previous Approvals and Recommendations: The Court ruled that a COA Director's favorable recommendation is merely advisory and does not bind the COA Proper, which has the original jurisdiction to issue written concurrences. Under the 2009 Revised Rules of Procedure of the COA, while a subordinate office evaluates the request, the final authority rests with the Commission. Additionally, the Court held that each contract year is distinct; therefore, concurrences obtained for 2015 and 2016 do not automatically extend to or excuse the lack of concurrence for 2017. No law or issuance provides for an exemption for renewed contracts. The requirement for prior written concurrence remains the general rule to ensure the proper expenditure of public funds and to prevent the circumvention of the OSG's mandate as the government's primary legal defender.
Main Doctrine
The engagement of private legal counsel by government agencies is an exception to the rule that the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) is the sole legal representative of the government. For such an exception to be valid, the agency must secure the written conformity of the OSG and the written concurrence of the Commission on Audit (COA) prior to the hiring. This requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional; subsequent or post-facto approvals do not cure the irregularity of the expenditure if the request was not filed within the reglementary period. The only exception is when the COA is guilty of inordinate delay in acting upon a timely filed request, which was not present in this case.