G.R. No. 219425 - VIOLETA C. MAGASO, VS. THE HON. COMMISSION ON AUDIT.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the herein request for exclusion as persons liable of Mr. Wilfredo S. Pacatang and Violeta C. Magaso of the Department of Health, Center for Health Development (DOH-CHD), Zamboanga Peninsula, Zamboanga City, from the Notice of Disallowance (ND) No. 07-22-101 (04) dated March 14, 2007 is hereby DENIED . [13] The COA cited Section 19 of the Manual for Certificate of Settlement and Balance, which states: 19.1.2 Public officers who certify to the necessity, legality and availability of funds/budgetary allotments, adequacy of documents, etc. involving the expenditure of funds or uses of government property shall be liable according to their respective certifications. According to the COA, it is evident that Magaso and Pacatang's participation as signatories of Box "A" and Box "B" of the disbursement voucher is material and, significant enough to the consummation of the transaction. Without their signature, the transaction could not have been consummated and the funds could not have been transferred to the Municipality of Panglima Tahil. [14] In the Notice of Finality of Decision dated 23 April 2015, the COA informed the Regional Director of DOH-CHD that the foregoing Decision has become final and executory in the absence of an appeal filed within the reglementary period. [15] Issues Only Magaso filed the instant Petition, raising the following issues: I. Whether COA gravely erred in ruling that Magaso is liable for the release of P3,000,000.00 fund in favor of Panglima Tahil Municipality; II. Whether COA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction when it denied Magaso's right to due process of law thereby making the Notice of Finality of Decision null and void; and III. Whether COA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction when it violated the Constitutional provision requiring that decision rendered must clearly and distinctly state the facts and law on which it is based. Ruling of the Court The petition is without merit. At the outset, Magaso alleged that she did not receive any copy of the assailed Decision. She only learned of it when she received a copy of the Notice of Finality of Decision on 23 June 2015. [16] She filed the instant Petition on 23 July 2015, or within 30 days from her receipt of the Notice of Finality of Decision. [17] It must be emphasized that a judgment becomes final and executory by operation of law. Finality becomes a fact when the reglementary period to appeal lapses and no appeal is perfected within such period. When a final judgment is executory, it becomes immutable and unalterable. This doctrine of immutability is founded on considerations of public policy and sound practice that, at the risk of occasional errors, judgments must become final at some definite point in time. [18] A related concept is the running of reglementary period to appeal, which commences from receipt of the notice of decision. [19] In this case, Magaso alle