G.R. No. 252367 , July 14, 2020
RAZUL K. ABPI, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Before his retirement in 2012, petitioner Razul K. Abpi concurrently held the positions of Provincial Engineer of Maguindanao and Caretaker of the Department of Public Works and Highways-Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (DPWH-ARMM) as of October 3, 2005. In 2010, the Commission on Audit (COA) created a Special Audit Team (SAT) to assess DPWH-ARMM’s funds and project implementation from January 2008 to December 2009. The audit concluded that funds were not properly recorded, utilized, and managed. The SAT issued sixteen (16) Notices of Disallowance (NDs) totaling P846,536,603.80, where petitioner was held accountable. His liability stemmed from his role as approving officer: he signed disbursement vouchers, purchase orders, and requisition slips despite absent supporting documents; awarded contracts without public bidding; and certified completion of projects with evident deficiencies.
Petitioner filed an Appeal Memorandum and Motion for Exclusion with the COA’s Special Audits Office (SAO) on June 14, 2013, arguing he acted in good faith, relied on subordinates’ certifications, and performed ministerial duties. The SAO denied his appeal on May 23, 2013, ruling his duties were not ministerial as document deficiencies were apparent, and as Caretaker, he was primarily responsible for DPWH-ARMM funds under Presidential Decree No. 1445. Petitioner filed a Petition for Review with the COA Commission Proper on July 4, 2013.
The COA Commission Proper dismissed the petition in its Decision dated October 19, 2016, for being filed out of time. It noted that even if timely, the appeal lacked merit. A Notice of Finality of Decision was issued on February 28, 2018. Petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the COA in a Resolution dated January 29, 2020. The COA upheld the audit findings, ruled the transactions were spurious and irregular, and held petitioner could not invoke the defense of good faith reliance on subordinates (Arias v. Sandiganbayan) as he directly participated in the disallowed transactions.

ISSUE

1. Whether the COA committed grave abuse of discretion in sustaining the notices of disallowance based on an incomplete audit.
2. Whether the COA committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming petitioner’s liability for the notices of disallowance.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the Petition for Certiorari.
1. On Procedural Grounds: The petition was filed out of time, had a defective verification and certification against forum shopping, and failed to show grave abuse of discretion by the COA. The reglementary period to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 is 30 days from notice of the assailed judgment. Petitioner received the COA Decision on November 9, 2018, and filed a motion for reconsideration on November 19, 2018, interrupting the period. Upon receiving the denial on March 10, 2020, he had 15 remaining days to file, extended by Supreme Court Administrative Circular due to the COVID-19 pandemic, making the last day May 18, 2020. Petitioner filed only on June 26, 2020, 39 days late, without a motion for extension or compelling reason for relaxation of the rules. Furthermore, the attached Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping was a mere photocopy, and the original was never submitted, a ground for dismissal under the rules.
2. On the Merits (Absence of Grave Abuse of Discretion): The Court found no capricious or arbitrary exercise of judgment by the COA. The COA correctly applied its rules of procedure. Petitioner’s appeal to the COA Commission Proper was filed beyond the reglementary period. Under the 2009 Revised Rules of Procedure of COA, an appeal to the Commission Proper must be filed within the time remaining of the six-month period for appealing to the Director after receiving the ND. Petitioner received the NDs on December 6, 2011, but filed his appeal with the SAO Director only on June 14, 2013, well beyond the six-month period. Consequently, the SAO Decision affirming the NDs became final and executory. The COA’s dismissal of the belated petition was thus in accordance with law.
Even disregarding procedural lapses, the COA did not commit grave abuse of discretion in affirming petitioner’s liability. As the designated Caretaker of DPWH-ARMM, petitioner was the head of the agency primarily responsible for all government funds and property under Section 102 of P.D. No. 1445. The audit findings showed he approved irregular transactions. His defense of good faith reliance on subordinates (Arias doctrine) was inapplicable because the deficiencies in the supporting documents were apparent on their face, and he directly participated in the consummation of the disallowed transactions. The COA’s factual findings, being supported by substantial evidence, are accorded respect and finality.