GR 261207 Kho (Digest)
G.R. No. 261207 , August 22, 2023
TOPBEST PRINTING CORPORATION, AS DULY REPRESENTED BY SHIRLEY L. DIONISIO, PETITIONER, VS. SOFIA C. GEMORA, IN HER CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR IV OF THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, EDNA P. SALAGUBAN, SUPERVISING AUDITOR, FAHAD BIN ABDUL MALIK N. TOMAWIS, AUDIT TEAM LEADER, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
The case involves a disallowance by the Commission on Audit (COA) on payments made by the National Printing Office (NPO) to petitioner Topbest Printing Corporation. The disallowance was based on violations of Republic Act No. 9970 (the General Appropriations Act of 2010) and Government Procurement Policy Board Resolution No. 05-2010, which prohibit the NPO from subcontracting its printing work. The petitioner failed to file an appeal before the COA within the reglementary period, causing the COA National Government Audit Sector (NGAS) Cluster 1 decision to become final and executory.
ISSUE
Whether the doctrine of finality and immutability of judgment should be relaxed to allow the application of the principle of quantum meruit to temper the amount to be returned by the petitioner, despite the Notice of Disallowance having become final.
RULING
Justice Kho, Jr., in his Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, concurred with the ponencia’s decision to uphold the disallowance and its finding that the petitioner’s failure to timely appeal barred the petition. However, he dissented on the issue of liabilities. He opined that the amount to be returned by the petitioner should be tempered by the principle of quantum meruit, as established in Torreta v. COA, even though the Notice of Disallowance had become final. He argued that the doctrine of finality and immutability of judgment is not absolute and may be relaxed based on compelling circumstances, such as to prevent the government from unjustly enriching itself. Since the government benefited from the petitioner’s equipment and printing services, requiring a full refund would be contrary to justice and equity. Justice Kho, Jr. voted to remand the case to the COA for a determination of the petitioner’s liability under the Notice of Disallowance.