Q. No. 16 | Political Law | Bar 2023
Bea filed a civil case for collection of a sum of money for non-payment by the province of Cagayan of various hospital supplies it purchased from her, as evidenced by invoices duly received and signed by its authorized representatives.
After Bea completed the presentation of her evidence, the province moved to dismiss the case on the ground that the primary jurisdiction over her money claim belongs to the Commission on Audit (COA), as it arose from a series of procurement transactions with the province. The trial court dismissed the case on the ground that jurisdiction over the case lies with the COA.
Bea argued that the trial court erred since a collection suit is within the jurisdiction of the courts and the province belatedly invoked the doctrine. Is Bea correct? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER
Preliminary |
This jurisdiction acknowledges and respects the full authority given by the 1987 Constitution to the Commission on Audit (COA), as guardian of public funds, to make a determination on issues pertaining to audit of government accounts. Hence, the COA should be allowed to make a full disposition of specialized matters within its authority to decide. Settled is the rule that before a party may seek the intervention of the court, he or she should first avail of all the means afforded him by administrative processes.
RE: COA has primary jurisdiction over
issues involving disallowances
The principle of primary jurisdiction holds that if a case is such that its determination requires the expertise, specialized training and knowledge of the proper administrative bodies, relief must first be obtained in an administrative proceeding before a remedy is supplied by the courts even if the matter may well be within their proper jurisdiction.40
Courts cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a question within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal prior to the resolution of that question by that administrative tribunal, where the question demands the exercise of sound discretion requiring its special knowledge, experience, and services to determine technical and intricate matters of fact.41
The objective of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is to guide the court in determining whether it should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction until after an administrative agency has determined some question or some aspect of some question arising in the proceeding before the court.42
The jurisdiction of courts and quasi-judicial bodies is determined by the Constitution and the law.43 The matter of allowing or disallowing the requests for payment is within the primary power of COA to decide.44
Article IX of the 1987 Constitution is clear:
D. The Commission on Audit
SECTION 1. (1) There shall be a Commission on Audit composed of a Chairman and two Commissioners x x x.
SECTION 2. (1) The Commission on Audit shall have the power, authority, and duty to examine, audit, and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of funds and property, owned or held in trust by, or pertaining to, the Government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters, and on a post-audit basis: (a) constitutional bodies, commissions and offices that have been granted fiscal autonomy under this Constitution; (b) autonomous state colleges and universities; (c) other government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries; and (d) such non-governmental entities receiving subsidy or equity, directly or indirectly, from or through the Government, which are required by law or the granting institution to submit to such audit as a condition of subsidy or equity. However, where the internal control system of the audited agencies is inadequate, the Commission may adopt such measures, including temporary or special pre-audit, as are necessary and appropriate to correct the deficiencies. It shall keep the general accounts of the Government and, for such period as may be provided by law, preserve the vouchers and other supporting papers pertaining thereto. (Emphasis ours)
Likewise, under Commonwealth Act No. 327, as amended by Section 26 of Presidential Decree No. 1445, it is the COA which has primary jurisdiction over money claims against government agencies and instrumentalities.
Verily, the Constitution and law bestow primary jurisdiction on the examination and audit of government accounts to the COA. As one of the three (3) independent constitutional commissions, COA has the power to define the scope of its audit and examination, and to establish the techniques and methods required therefor. It also has the power to promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations, including those for the prevention and disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures or uses of government funds and properties.45
In Euro-Med Laboratories, Phil., Inc. v. Province of Batangas,46 this Court ruled that when the issue involves compliance with applicable auditing laws and rules on procurement, such matters are not within the usual area of knowledge, experience and expertise of most judges but within the special competence of COA auditors and accountants.
RELATED
RE: The authority to conduct a limited
judicial review of acts, decisions or
resolutions of the COA is only vested
by law to this Court
Section 7 of Article IX of the 1987 Constitution is clear:
ARTICLE IX
Constitutional Commissions
A. Common Provisions
xxx
SECTION 7. Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote of all its Members any case or matter brought before it within sixty days from the date of its submission for decision or resolution. A case or matter is deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the rules of the Commission or by the Commission itself. Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof.
Jurisprudence48 has interpreted this Constitutional provision as a manifestation to grant the COA broad authority to decide on specialized matters delegated to them. Compared to the phraseology in the 1935 Constitution granting this Court full and broad review authority, the 1987 Constitution limits this Court's authority to review decisions of the Constitutional Commissions only to instances of grave abuse of discretion amounting to patent and substantial denial of due process.
The exceptions to the rule on primary jurisdiction do not apply in the case at bar
To be sure, this Court, in certain instances, has recognized exceptions to the rules. However, this is done only for the most compelling reasons, where strict adherence to the rules would defeat rather than serve the ends of justice.49 A liberal construction of the rules requires, at least, an explanation on why the party-litigant failed to comply with the rules and by a justification for the requested liberal construction.
In any event, the circumstances of the case do not qualify as one of the exceptions to the general rule on COA's primary jurisdiction over money claims against the government, viz: (a) where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine; (b) where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction; (c) where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the complainant; (d) where the amount involved is relatively small so as to make the rule impractical and oppressive; (e) where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by the courts of justice; (f) where judicial intervention is urgent; (g) when its application may cause great and irreparable damage; (h) where the controverted acts violate due process; (i) when the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot; (j) when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy; (k) when strong public interest is involved50; and, (l) in quo warranto proceedings.
It is true that in the past, this Court upheld the courts'jurisdiction over money claims against the government if they involve interpretation of the Constitution54, determination of contractual rights and obligations55, or if there was unreasonable delay and official inaction on the part of COA.56 However, private respondent's petitions did not raise the same issues and merely dwelt on the supposed impropriety of the NDs.
Given that the disallowances have become final and executory, the RTC could no longer alter the same. It should have dismissed private respondent's petitions.
The doctrine of immutability of judgments bars courts from modifying decisions that have already attained finality, even if the purpose of the modification is to correct errors of fact or law,61 and whether it be made by the court that rendered it or by the Highest Court of the land. Any act which violates this principle must immediately be struck down.62
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The petitions docketed as Special Civil Action Nos. P-155-2014 and P-156-2014 before Branch 33, Regional Trial Court of Pili, Camarines Sur are hereby DISMISSED. Accordingly, COA Notices of Disallowances Nos. 2012-100-024, 2012-100-25, 2012-100-26, 2012-100-37, 2012-100-40, 2012-100-39, 2012-100-041, 2012-100-42, 2012-100-43, 2012-100-044 are hereby AFFIRMED and declared FINAL and EXECUTORY. Accordingly, execution may be issued against the persons identified in the aforesaid notices of disallowances.
SO ORDERED.
[ G.R. No. 218870, November 24, 2020 ]
THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ATTY. ELEANOR V. ECHANO, FELIZARDO B. TOQUERO, JR., TITA B. EMBESTRO, SUSIE S. LAUREANO, JOHANSON V. DISUANCO, AND ADELA A. TABUZO, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. ERWIN VIRGILIO R. FERRER, ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 33, PILI, CAMARINES SUR, AND LUIS RAYMUND F. VILLAFUERTE, JR., FORMER GOVERNOR OF CAMARINES SUR, RESPONDENTS.
Read the full text at
FOOTNOTES
41 Republic v. Lacap, G.R. No. 158253, 02 March 2007, 546 Phil. 87 (2007) [Per J. Austria-Martinez].
FOLLOW US!
📎 Bio
🛒 Shop
⚖️ Blog
🤝 Business
コメント