G.R. No. 254871 . December 06, 2022.
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND DEVELOPMENT, REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR SITTIE RAIFAH M. PAMALOY-HASSAN, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

The Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) sought to rehire Atty. Melanie D. Ortiz-Rosete as a private legal retainer for its Field Office No. 10 for the period January 1 to December 31, 2017. The Contract of Service was executed on November 2, 2016. DSWD requested the Solicitor General’s approval on December 5, 2016, which was granted on May 22, 2017. DSWD requested the Commission on Audit’s (COA) concurrence only on January 5, 2018, after the contract had expired. The COA Legal Retainer Review denied the request due to the belated application. DSWD moved for reconsideration, citing reasons such as scarce legal manpower, trust in the lawyer, prior Solicitor General approval, a favorable COA Director recommendation, and COA’s prior concurrence for 2015 and 2016 contracts. The COA Proper denied the motion, affirming that the prior written conformity of the Solicitor General and concurrence of COA are mandatory prerequisites under COA Circular No. 86-255, as amended, and must be secured before hiring. It ruled the expenditure irregular and held the approving DSWD officials personally liable.

ISSUE

Did the COA Proper commit grave abuse of discretion when it did not concur in the 2017 Contract rehiring Atty. Ortiz-Rosete on account of the lack of the required prior written conformities of the Solicitor General and the COA?

RULING

No, the COA Proper did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit. The Court held that government agencies are generally prohibited from hiring private legal counsel, and any exception requires strict compliance with the prior written conformity of the Solicitor General and prior written concurrence of the COA, as mandated by COA Circular No. 86-255, as amended. DSWD’s compliance was neither timely nor complete. The request for COA concurrence was made after the contract period had ended, making it a post facto application. The eventual approval by the Solicitor General did not cure the procedural defect. The reasons offered by DSWD pertained to the merits of the hiring but did not justify its non-compliance with the procedural rules. The COA Proper’s denial was in accordance with law and jurisprudence, and its findings did not constitute grave abuse of discretion, which requires a showing of unauthorized, whimsical, or capricious acts. The payment for services rendered remains the personal liability of the DSWD officials who approved the contract in violation of the rules.