GR 252658; (December, 2023) (Digest)
G.R. No. 252658 , December 05, 2023
TIBURCIO L. CANLAS, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
The Commission on Audit (COA) issued Notices of Disallowance (NDs) in 2011 against petitioner Tiburcio L. Canlas and others for deficiencies in public works projects totaling PHP 27,261,986.85. Canlas received the NDs on February 2, 2012. His co-respondents appealed to the COA Regional Office, which affirmed the NDs in a Decision dated June 11, 2013. Canlas, together with his co-respondents, received this Regional Office Decision on June 28, 2013, and subsequently filed a Petition for Review before the COA Proper on July 11, 2013. While this 2013 Petition was pending, Canlas filed a separate Supplemental Petition for Exclusion from Persons Liable on July 24, 2014, seeking his personal exoneration from liability.
ISSUE
Whether the COA Proper acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Canlas’s Supplemental Petition for being filed out of time and for lack of merit.
RULING
No, the COA Proper did not commit grave abuse of discretion. On procedural grounds, the COA correctly ruled the Supplemental Petition was filed out of time. The reglementary period to appeal the Regional Office Decision was six months from receipt. Canlas received the Decision on June 28, 2013, making the deadline December 25, 2013. His Supplemental Petition, filed on July 24, 2014, was manifestly late. His argument that the pending 2013 Petition tolled the period is erroneous. The 2013 Petition was a collective appeal on the merits of the NDs, while the Supplemental Petition was a distinct, personal plea for exclusion. The filing of the former did not suspend the running of the appeal period for the latter. A separate petition for exclusion must independently comply with procedural timelines.
On substantive grounds, the COA Proper correctly found the petition lacking in merit. Canlas invoked the Arias doctrine, claiming his approval of documents was ministerial, relying on his subordinates’ countersignatures. The COA properly rejected this. The doctrine presumes regularity only when there is no reason to suspect the subordinates’ competence and integrity. As the District Engineer, Canlas possessed direct responsibility over project implementation. His signatures on the construction contracts and Statements of Work Accomplished were not mere formalities but constituted approvals necessitating the exercise of discretion and due diligence to ensure project specifications were met. The audit findings of significant deficiencies, including incomplete work and overstatements, directly implicated his supervisory and approving functions. His failure to detect these irregularities negated the protective mantle of the Arias doctrine and established his liability as a proximate cause of the loss. The COA’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and its denial of the petition was in accordance with law, devoid of any capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment.