G.R. No. 253777 - MARY GRACE D. CORPUZ, SOPHIA T. BORJA, LEO C. JAVIER, CAESAR JOVENTINO M. TADO, AND BABYLINDA O. REYES, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, we affirm the disallowances as stated under Notices of Disallowance (NDs) Nos. 14-001-101(09) and 14-002-101(2013), both dated January 6, 2014, in aggregate amount of P209,765.00. Consequently, the herein appeal for the lifting of the subject disallowances is hereby DENIED . [30] Undeterred, the petitioners, as well as others made liable under the Subject NDs , sought a review of the Decision of the COA-RO3 with the COA proper. The appeal was nevertheless denied by the COA proper for lack of meritthe petitioners' arguments being mere rehash of those submitted before the COA-RO3: WHEREFORE , premises considered, the Petition for Review of Ms. Mary Grace Corpuz, Accountant IV, et al., Philippine Rice Research Institute, Central Experimental Station, Maligaya, Science City of Muñoz, Nueva Ecija, is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, Commission on Audit Regional Office III Decision No. 2015-04 dated January 8, 2015 sustaining Notice of Disallowance Nos. 14-001-101(09) and 14-002-101(2013) both dated January 6, 2014, on the payment of legal retainer fees, court appearances, incentives, legal services, and reimbursement for the renewal of notarial commission of Atty. Teodoro G. Mendoza, in fiscal years 2009 and 2013, in the total amount of P209,765.00, is AFFIRMED. [31] The petitioners sought reconsideration of the Decision of the COA proper but was denied by the COA En Banc through its Notice No. 2020-014 issued on February 12, 2020 for failing "to raise any new matter or other sufficient ground to justify a reconsideration x x x." [32] The petitioners now come before this Court seeking a reversal of the Decision of the COA proper and the Notice of the COA En Banc . In the main, the petitioners proffer three (3) arguments: first , that the government will be unjustly enriched should the Subject NDs be sustained; [33] second , that the Subject Contract and all disbursements were fair and reasonable under the circumstances, and compliant with applicable law, rules, and jurisprudence; [34] and third , that the petitioners acted in good faith in disbursing the amounts paid to Atty. Mendoza. [35] II. RULING The petition is partly meritorious. The Procedure for Approval of the Subject Contract. At the outset, this Court finds that the Subject Contract , at the time of execution, was not entered into in accordance with the prevailing law, rules, and jurisprudence. Under the Charter of PhilRice, its statutory counsel is the OGCC, whose functions are complimented by PhilRice' own legal department tasked to handle routine day-to-day legal matters. [36] Admittedly, despite the legal arsenal at its disposal, PhilRice is not precluded from seeking the assistance of external counsel. This much is clear from COA Circular No. 95-11 dated December 4, 1995. [37] However, before such external counsel may be engaged, PhilRice and its responsible officers are burdened with the duty to show that such "legal services cannot be av