G.R. No. 224163 - MARIO M. GERONIMO, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF KABUKIRAN GARDEN, V. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, AND THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY ROGELIO L. SINGSON.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition for money claim is hereby DENIED. [6] Geronimo moved for reconsideration, but the same was denied by the COA in its Resolution dated December 23, 2015. Hence, this petition. The Issue WHETHER THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT ERRED WHEN IT DENIED GERONIMO'S MONEY CLAIM DESPITE ITS FINDING THAT DPWH'S LIABILITY IN FAVOR OF GERONIMO EXISTS. Geronimo argues that the "complete documentation" requirement under Section 4(6) of P.D. No. 1445 should not be restricted to the actual documents submitted and/or required in the regular course of business, but should pertain to any document which may support the claim against the government. As such, the photographs showing that the projects have been completed and the letters wherein the DPWH acknowledged the existence of its obligation would suffice to entitle him to receive payment for his services. He points out that his claim is based on the principles of quantum meruit and unjust enrichment which are founded on equity. Thus, they should not be limited by the rigid application of the provisions of laws such as Section 4(6) of P.D. No. 1445. In its Comment [7] dated September 1, 2016, the DPWH, through the Office of the Solicitor General, maintains that the money claim was properly denied. It asserts that Geronimo failed to present any evidence which could form the basis for the determination of the existence of the projects or, in case they indeed exist, the compensation therefor based on quantum meruit . It notes that no proof was presented to show that the projects were completed in accordance with its plans and specifications, or that it duly accepted the same. As such, the principle of quantum meruit is not applicable. The DPWH also insists that Geronimo is not entitled to any compensation because they did not execute any written contract. It submits that a review of this Court's decisions involving the application of the principle of quantum meruit on claims against the government would show that even if a government project failed to abide by the prescribed audit rules, there has to be, at the very least, a contract or an implied authorization or express acknowledgment from the government agency involved to show that the contractor had actually been tasked to complete the project in question. Finally, it argues that the findings of the COA are accorded not only respect but also finality as its decision was not tainted with unfairness and arbitrariness. The Court's Ruling The petition is meritorious. Principle of quantum meruit applicable in this case. At the onset, it must be emphasized that the Court concurs with the COA's findings with regard to the applicability of the principle of quantum meruit and the existence of DPWH's liability to Geronimo. Ordinarily, a written contract along with a written certification showing availability of funds for the project are among the conditions necessary for the execution of government contracts. It has been held, how