RG CABRERA CORPORATION, INC., VS. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS AND COMMISSION ON AUDIT.

Ruling

Accordingly, this led to the creation of Task Force Mount Pinatubo Rehabilitation Projects (Task Force), headed by its Chairman, Vicente B. Lopez (Chairman Lopez), Regional Director of Region III, DPWH. [12] Chairman Lopez authorized the District Engineer of the DPWH Pampanga 2 nd Engineering District, Guagua, Pampanga (DPWH Pampanga) to hire bulldozers to be utilized for the maintenance and preservation of the Porac-Gumain River and other related projects. Pursuant to the foregoing, DPWH Pampanga entered into various contracts with RGCCI for the lease of equipment for the maintenance and restoration of parts of the Porac-­Gumain Diversion Channel System. The contracts entered into by RGCCI and the DPWH are the following: lease on one (1) unit of payloader 75B at the rental rate of P835.00 per hour for a period of 60 days in the amount of P313,542.50 plus interest to be counted from the date of last demand until full payment of the obligation; [13] construction of a dike by bulldozing the Porac River, Ascomo-­Pulunmasle, Guagua, Pampanga from Sta. 0+580 to Sta. 1+500 for the total contract amount of P2,113,470.84, where the remaining balance is P1,574,580.50; [14] and the excavation of channel, pushing and diking of Gumain River, Floridablanca, Pampanga, from Sta. 1+1000 to Sta. 1+750, amounting to P1,853,836.20. [15] RGCCI sought the collection of all the unpaid amounts from the DPWH. However, despite several demands, RGCCI's request remained unheeded. This drove RGCCI to file three (3) civil cases for the collection of sum of money before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Guagua, Pampanga, against the Secretary and Engineers of the DPWH. All the cases were eventually dismissed by the RTC for lack of jurisdiction without prejudice to the filing of the claim before the COA. [16] Undeterred, RGCCI filed separate claims before the COA which were docketed as COA CP Case Nos. 2013-050, 2012-116, and 2013-049, respective1y. [17] In its Answer, [18] the DPWH claimed that the contracts were null and void due to the fact that it is unauthorized and not supported with complete documentation to be compliant with the requirements of the law. Among others, it points to the lack of Certificate of Availability of Funds signed by the proper accounting official which is an integral part of a contract pursuant to Section 87 of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1445. [19] Ruling of the COA Decision No. 2015-411 In its Decision [20] dated December 28, 2015, the COA reiterated that the claims against government funds should be supported with complete documentation and that even though there was a contract between RGCCI and DPWH Pampanga, RGCCI must first show, through competent evidence, its indisputable right to collect the same which cannot be proven by mere contract alone. The COA zeroed in on the alleged failure of RGCCI to attach the Certificate of Availability of Funds signed by the proper accounting official and auditor who verified it. According to the COA, this