G.R. No. 238676 - ELAINE E. NAVARRO AND RAUL L. OROZCO, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT CENTRAL OFFICE, COMMISSION ON AUDIT REGIONAL OFFICE NO. XIII.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, Commission on Audit Regional Office XIII Decision No. 2011-032 dated August 23, 2011 is hereby DISAPPROVED insofar as it had reduced the disallowance by the amount of P7,259,676.10. Accordingly, Notice of Disallowance (ND) No. 09-005-101 (08) dated October 19, 2009 in the amount of P18,298,789.50 is hereby AFFIRMED . [12] Petitioners moved for reconsideration but it was denied by the COA in its October 26, 2017 Resolution. Hence, this present petition raising the following issues: Issues I WHETHER THE COA COMMISSION PROPER GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION WHEN IN (SIC) RENDERED A DECISION IN GROSS VIOLATION OF PETITIONERS' RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES; II WHETHER THE COA COMMISSION PROPER GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION WHEN IN (SIC) SUSTAINING NOTICE OF DISALLOWANCE NO. 09-005-101-(08) IN TOTAL DISREGARD TO THE DEFENSES RAISED BY PETITIONERS; AND III WHETHER THE COA COMMISSION PROPER GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION WHEN IT INCLUDED PETITIONERS AS AMONG THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DISALLOWANCE IN BLATANT DISREGARD TO THE EXTENT OF HER PARTICIPATION TO THE TRANSACTION. [13] Petitioners argue that the COA violated their rights to speedy disposition of cases. They highlight that the proceedings before the COA­-RO took more than two years and six months from the issuance of AOM No. DepEdRO13-2009-003 on February 17, 2009. Likewise, petitioners note that it took five years and three months before the COA rendered its November 9, 2016 Decision from the time the COA-RO Decision was elevated for automatic review. Thus, petitioners believe they suffered inordinate delay as the COA resolved their case only after seven years and nine months have lapsed. In addition, they surmise that the procurement of reference materials was valid considering that Sec. Lapus himself authorized it. Finally, they contend that they should be excused from refunding the disallowed amount because of their limited participation in the transaction. Petitioners bewail that they only came into the picture after the procurement had been made and its delivery effected. In its Comment [14] dated August 22, 2018, the COA countered that the petitioners merely alleged a delay in the disposition of the case without showing that it was vexatious, capricious or oppressive. It elucidates that the right to speedy disposition of cases is flexible and due regard must be given to the circumstances. The COA reiterated that the disallowance of the procurement of reference materials was justified in view of the moratorium on the purchase of supplementary and reference materials. Thus, it posited that it did not act with grave abuse of discretion because its decision was based on existing rules and regulations. In their Reply [15] dated October 7, 2019, petitioners insisted that their constitutional rights to speedy di