GR 218461 Perlas Bernabe (Digest)
G.R. No. 218461 , September 14, 2021
ILDEFONSO T. PATDU, JR., PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Petitioner Ildefonso T. Patdu, Jr. assailed the Decision dated December 13, 2010 and the Resolution dated April 6, 2015 of the Commission on Audit (COA). The COA rulings reinstated Notice of Disallowance (ND) No. 97-011-102 (DOTC) (95) dated June 18, 1997, which disallowed excessive construction costs for the Davao Fishing Port Complex amounting to P53,951,955.03 for violating Presidential Decree No. 1594. The COA held Patdu, Jr. civilly liable for P5,210,744.29, corresponding to the Variation Orders he reviewed that were found infirm. The subject matter of the assailed COA rulings pertained to an appeal of a different disallowance, ND No. 98-004-103 (DOTC) (96), to which Patdu, Jr. was not a party. The reinstatement of ND 95 and Patdu, Jr.’s liability thereunder occurred as a side incident in the appeal of ND 96. Patdu, Jr. argued that the lifting of ND 95 by the Director of the National Government Audit Office II through a 5th Indorsement dated July 19, 2001 had attained finality, and thus the COA gravely abused its discretion in reinstating it.
ISSUE
Whether the Commission on Audit gravely abused its discretion in reinstating Notice of Disallowance No. 95, the lifting of which had allegedly attained finality.
RULING
The concurring opinion agrees with the ponencia’s ruling. The doctrine of immutability of judgments applies. The decision of the NGAO Director lifting ND 95 had attained finality. The COA Rules of Procedure provide that when a Director affirms the ruling of an Auditor, further elevation to the COA Proper is unnecessary, and the affirmance becomes final if not appealed. Conversely, if a Director reverses, modifies, or alters an Auditor’s ruling, it must be elevated for automatic review. The NGAO Director’s action in lifting the ND was a reversal, which, under the rules, required automatic elevation to the COA Proper for review. However, since this automatic review was not undertaken, the lifting of the ND became final and immutable. Therefore, the COA committed grave abuse of discretion in reinstating ND 95. Furthermore, Patdu, Jr. lacked standing to question ND 96, as he was not a party to it.