G.R. No. 252367 - RAZUL K. ABPI, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for review with motion for exclusion of Mr. Razul K. Abpi, Caretaker, Department of Public Works and Highways-Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, is hereby DISMISSED for having been filed out of time. Accordingly, Special Audit Office (SAO) Decision No. 2013-001 dated May 23, 2013, which affirmed SAO Notice of Disallowance Nos. DPWH-11-001-101-(09), 11-006-101-(09), 11-016-101-(09), DPWH-11-002 to 005-101-(08 & 09), 11-009 to 010-101-(08 & 09), 11-013-101-(08 & 09), 11-015-101-(08 & 09), and DPWH-11-007 to 008-101-(08), 11-011 to 012-101-(08), and 11-014-101-(08), all dated August 26, 2011, in the total amount of P846,536,603.80, is FINAL and EXECUTORY . [17] The assailed Decision dismissed the petition for review for being belatedly filed. This notwithstanding, the COA held that the appeal would still be denied for lack of legal and factual basis. In a Separate Opinion [18] penned by COA Chairperson Michael Aguinaldo, despite the denial of the petition for review, he averred that the amount of disallowance may be reduced by the reasonable value of any materials actually delivered, or work actually completed which actually benefitted the government as held in Melchor v. Commission on Audit . [19] On 28 February 2018, a Notice of Finality of Decision (NFD) No. 2018-038 [20] was issued stating that the assailed Decision had become final and executory. Aggrieved, petitioner moved for reconsideration via an Omnibus Motion to Lift Finality of Decision, Reconsideration, and Exclusion from Persons Liable. [21] On 29 January 2020, the COA issued the assailed Resolution [22] denying the same. The COA maintained that the petition for review was belatedly filed and upheld the audit findings of SAT which it held was sufficient to warrant a conclusion that the transactions subject of the NDs were spurious and irregular. Finally, the COA ruled that petitioner could not invoke Arias v. Sandiganbayan [23] to anchor his exclusion from liability. Rather than a mere approving authority, petitioner directly participated in the procedure leading to the consummation of the disallowed transactions. The Issues Whether the COA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it sustained the notices of disallowances based on [an] incomplete audit. Whether the COA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it affirmed petitioner's liability for the notices of disallowances. The Court's Ruling The Petition for Certiorari is denied for: (a) being filed out of time; (b) defective verification and certification against forum shopping; and (c) failure to show grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COA. The Court has time and again ruled that the belated filing of a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 is fatal. As explained in Binga Hydroelectric Plant, Inc. v. Commission on Audit : [24] We have said previously that the belated filing of a petitio