G.R. No. 230566 - SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY, ET AL., VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , the foregoing premises considered, instant appeal is hereby DENIED . Accordingly, Special Audit Notice of Disallowance (ND) No. 2012-001-(2011) COA Regional Office No. 2011-133 dated March 26, 2012, disallowing P2,420,603.99 is hereby AFFIRMED . [10] Undaunted, petitioners filed a petition for review before the COA. The COA Ruling In its decision dated December 29, 2015, the COA dismissed the petition because it was filed out of time. It observed that petitioners only had six (6) months or 180 days to file the petition before the COA. As the petition was filed beyond the 180-day period, the COA denied it outright. The dispositive portion of the COA decision reads: WHEREFORE , premises considered, the petition for review of former Administrator Armand C. Arreza, et al., Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority, Subic [Bay] Freeport Zone, Zambales, is hereby DISMISSED for having been filed out of time. Accordingly, COA RO3 Decision No. 2014-28 dated April 7, 2014, affirming Special Audit Notice of Disallowance No. 2012-001-(2011), Commission on Audit Regional Office No. 2011-133 dated March 26, 2012, in the amount of P2,420,603.99, is FINAL AND EXECUTORY . [11] Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but it was dismissed by the COA in its resolution dated December 21, 2016. Hence, this petition stating the following grounds: I. RESPONDENT COA COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT WHIMSICALLY AND CAPRISCIOUSLY SACRIFICED SUBSTANTIVE JUSTICE IN FAVOR OF PROCEDURAL TECHNICALITIES WITH ITS DISMISSAL OF PETITIONERS['] PETITION FOR REVIEW WITHOUT CONSIDERING AT ALL WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER[S'] ARGUMENTS DESERVE FULL CONSIDERATION ON THE MERITS. II. IN THE INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIVE JUSTICE, PETITIONERS' PETITION FOR REVIEW SHOULD HAVE BEEN [ACCEPTED] BY RESPONDENT COA CONSIDERING THAT THE ERRORS OF ITS RESIDENT AUDITORS ARE EVIDENT ON ITS FACE AND MORE SO AFTER AN EXAMINATION OF THE DOCUMENTS ON RECORD. III. RESPONDENT COA COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN REQUIRING THE SUBJECT TRANSACTION TO FULLY COMPLY WITH R.A. 9184 WHEN THE FUNDS USED TO PROCURE THE UNIFORMS WERE PURELY PRIVATE FUNDS, SINCE THESE CONSTITUTED THE UNIFORM ALLOWANCES OF EACH OF THE SBMA'S FIELD EMPLOYEES. IV. RESPONDENT COA COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN WILLFULLY IGNORING THAT NOT ONLY WAS THE [SUBJECT] TRANSACTION ENTERED INTO IN UTMOST GOOD FAITH, BUT THAT IT WAS PURSUED FOR THE PERSONAL BENEFIT OF SBMA'S EMPLOYEES SO THAT THEY COULD GET THE BEST QUALITY AND VALUE FROM THEIR UNIFORM ALLOWANCE. [12] Petitioners argue that the 180-day period to file the petition for review before the COA fell on May 31, 2014, a Saturday, hence, it timely filed the petition on the next working day or June 2, 2014; that COA did not even consider the weekends in its computation of time; that on the substantial aspect, their petition has merit;