G.R. No. 211553 - LEANDRO B. VERCELES, JR., VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, LAO-Local Resolution No. 2007-002 dated January 16, 2007 affirming the Notices of Disallowance in the aggregate amount of P7,528,175.46 is hereby AFFIRMED . [33] Verceles moved but failed to obtain reconsideration of the COA decision. [34] He came to this Court for relief through the present petition for certiorari . On August 12, 2014, the Court granted Verceles' prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order enjoining the implementation of the assailed COA decision. [35] The Petition Verceles anchors his petition on the following grounds: First , the COA disregarded Section 465 (b) (1) (vi) of the LGC, an exception to Section 22 (c) of the same code. [36] According to Verceles, while prior authorization to enter into a contract is the general rule, the LGC identifies an exception, i.e. , when the contract entered into is pursuant to a law or ordinance. He points out that the funding for the first and third MOAs were approved and included in the budget of the province for CYs 2001 and 2002. [37] Verceles posits that even granting that Resolution No. 104-A-2001 had revoked the governor's blanket authority to enter into contracts on behalf of the province, the MOAs merely implemented the items already identified in the appropriation ordinances for CYs 2001 and 2002. Thus, he could (as he did) enter into the MOAs to implement the approved items in the budget. [38] Second , he vetoed Resolution No. 104-A-2001. [39] Third , Resolution Nos. 67-2001, 68-2001, and 69-2001 had the force and effect of an ordinance and, thus, were effective during his term. [40] He argues that these resolutions carried the legislative intent to authorize the provincial governor to negotiate and contract loans on behalf of the province. [41] These resolutions were not time-bound. [42] Fourth , all the MOAs had proper funding authorizations. Verceles claims that the first and third MOAs were covered by appropriations under the EDF of the Province's CY 2001 and CY 2002 budgets. [43] The second, fourth and fifth MOAs, on the other hand, were funded from augmentation of funds from savings, which augmentations were ratified in the CY 2003 appropriation ordinance. Augmentation is allowed under Section 336 of the LGC and Article 454 (b) of the LGC implementing rules and regulations. [44] Verceles underscores that the appropriation ordinance for CY 2003 [45] ratified the second, fourth, and fifth MOAs. [46] Finally , Verceles submits that the COA violated his constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases when it took it more than ten (10) years to resolve the case. [47] The COA's Comment The COA, through the Office of the Solicitor General, denies that it gravely abused its discretion when it affirmed the Notices of Disallowance . The COA maintains that it correctly disallowed the cost of the project based on the grounds discussed in the assailed decision. [48] The C