G.R. No. 252007, December 07, 2021
HON. ZALDY UY AMPATUAN, FORMER REGIONAL GOVERNOR, AUTONOMOUS REGION IN MUSLIM MINDANAO, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

The Commission on Audit (COA), through its Special Audit Office (SAO), conducted a special audit of the Office of the Regional Governor (ORG) of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) for January 2008 to September 2009, during petitioner Zaldy U. Ampatuan’s tenure as Regional Governor. SAO issued Notice of Disallowance (ND) No. ORG-12-002-MDS/LF (08 & 09) dated January 13, 2012, disallowing an aggregate amount of ₱79,162,435.00. This amount represented payments to a supermarket (Superama) for office supplies and relief goods, disbursed through cash advances taken by Adham G. Patadon, ORG-ARMM’s Chief-Supply Division/Special Disbursing Officer. The disbursements were disallowed on multiple grounds, including violations of COA circulars on cash advances and cash payments, violation of the Government Procurement Reform Act (RA 9184) due to lack of public bidding, support by spurious and inadequate documents, denial by the supermarket owner of any transaction with ORG, lack of proof of need for relief goods or their distribution, and irregularities in the invoices used. Petitioner, as Regional Governor, was held liable for failure to monitor the activities and ensure proper use of government resources.
Petitioner, along with other officers, filed an Appeal to the SAO Director on August 3, 2012, which was denied. A Petition for Review before the COA Proper was denied on September 11, 2014, for being filed out of time and lacking merit. A Motion for Reconsideration was filed on November 6, 2014, and denied on March 9, 2015. On May 4, 2015, petitioner, through new counsel, filed a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration, arguing for the first time that his right to due process was violated due to the negligence of his former counsel, claiming he never received the ND, his signatures on earlier pleadings were obtained without explanation or were unauthorized electronic signatures, and that he had no participation in the disallowed transactions. On May 22, 2015, he filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment. The COA Proper, in Decision No. 2016-171 dated July 29, 2016, dismissed both the Supplemental MR and the Petition for Relief, finding petitioner bound by the earlier pleadings and his claims of due process violation and signature issues unsupported by proof. Petitioner’s subsequent Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration was denied by COA in a Resolution dated August 15, 2019, for being a prohibited second motion for reconsideration. Petitioner assails this Resolution via a Petition for Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Commission on Audit committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and in sustaining his liability for the disallowed amount.

RULING

No, the Commission on Audit did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The petition was denied. The Supreme Court held that the COA Proper correctly denied the Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration as a prohibited second motion for reconsideration. The Court found no merit in petitioner’s claim of denial of due process due to his former counsel’s negligence. The records showed that petitioner and his co-appellants personally signed and filed the Appeal, Petition for Review, and first Motion for Reconsideration. His belated claims of non-receipt of the ND and that his signatures were obtained without consent or were unauthorized electronic signatures were unsupported by competent evidence. Negligence of counsel binds the client, and petitioner failed to prove that his former counsel’s negligence was so gross, reckless, and inexcusable as to deprive him of due process. Furthermore, on the substantive issue of liability, the Court affirmed that petitioner, as the head of the agency (Regional Governor), bears primary responsibility under the Government Auditing Code for all government funds and property pertaining to his agency. His liability is not premised on direct participation or knowledge of the irregular transactions, but on his failure to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family in the supervision and control of his subordinates, particularly given the frequency and magnitude of the irregular cash advances. The disallowance had become final and executory.