G.R. No. 227467 , August 3, 2021
ATTY. JOAQUIN DELOS SANTOS, ENGR. EVELYN M. HATULAN AND CORNELIO V. TAMAYO, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioners, members of the Bids and Awards Committee of Cabuyao, Laguna, were held accountable to pay P42,594,037.69 under a Notice of Disallowance (ND) issued on November 19, 2007. This ND stemmed from a “suspension maturing into disallowance” related to projects with Golden Deer Enterprises and RDC Construction Development Corporation. Petitioners contended they only learned of the ND in 2013 upon receiving a Notice of Finality of Decision and an Order of Execution from the Commission on Audit (COA), both dated September 3, 2012. They immediately requested a review and copies of material documents but were denied by the COA Regional Director, who stated the ND showed their receipt and had become final due to no appeal being filed. Petitioners filed an Omnibus Motion, asserting denial of due process for not receiving the ND, claiming their signatures on it were forged, and that the ND did not specify the covered projects. The COA denied the motion, relying on the purported signatures, and subsequently denied their motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether the Commission on Audit gravely abused its discretion and denied petitioners due process by upholding the finality of the disallowance without affording them a genuine opportunity to be heard and to present their defenses.

RULING

The dissenting opinion votes to GRANT the Petition. It holds that the COA’s outright denial of the Omnibus Motion deprived petitioners of due process, amounting to grave abuse of discretion. The essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard, which requires being informed of the charges and given a fair opportunity to present defenses. Here, petitioners claimed they never received the ND, their signatures were forged, and the ND itself was defective for not specifying the facts and law behind the charges. The COA brushed aside these claims based solely on the purported signatures without verification. Petitioners were denied a real opportunity to present their side, as their requests for document copies and review were rejected on the ground of finality. Citing jurisprudence, the opinion emphasizes that fundamental due process requirements bind the COA, and a decision made in violation of due process is gravely defective and void. Given the substantial amount involved, the COA should have taken cognizance of petitioners’ appeal in the interest of substantial justice.