G.R. No. 242925 - NAOMI K. TORRETA AND JAIME M. LOPEZ, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , the Commission hereby DENIES the herein petition for review for lack of merit and AFFIRMS Corporate Government Sector-C Decision No. 2011-021 dated July 1, 2011 affirming Notice of Disallowance No. 10-002-(10) dated September 28, 2010 pertaining to the dispersal of 150 heads of dairy animals to Hapicows@Tropical Dairy Farm, Inc. in the amount of P17,316,000.00. Accordingly, National Dairy Authority is hereby directed to Implement Article 7 of the Memorandum Agreement providing for the repossession of the dairy animals. Hapicows@Tropical Dairy Farm, Inc. and officials of the National Dairy Authority, who signed or initiated the Memorandum of Agreement, are jointly and severally liable for the difference between the book value of the originally distributed animals and the appraised/assessed value of the repossessed animals. [21] Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration for the above Commission Proper's decision however the same was denied thru the Commission's Resolution dated August 16, 2018. [22] Hence, this review under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Issues Petitioners submit that the COA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction: When its audit was wrongly based on its perceived evaluation process instead of what the NDA, as the country's sole dairy authority, had observed and implemented. When its findings and interpretations were not based on the documents actually submitted by Hapicows to NDA and adamantly refused to acknowledge NDA's evaluation process and documentation, in direct contravention of the petitioners' right to administrative due process. a) COA misinterpreted petitioner Torreta's statement and wrongly treated the same as admission of Hapicows lack of evaluation and documents. b) Because COA erred in considering Hapicows and Molina as one and the same, its findings on the outstanding loans of Hapicows and its Manager Molina became disjointed and confused. Yet both notably enjoy good credit and standing regardless of whether both were to be treated as one or separately. c) The NDA's and Hapicows' MOA included insurance at the time when security against risks stemming from animal safety was unfortunately rare and almost non-existent. d) Hapicows' Articles of Incorporation and its capital stock were regular and its standing was unassailed. e) The Tagkawayan property can serve as a third farm whenever a need for one is required. Hapicows provided two farms for the dairy animals both of which were evaluated and found qualified by the NDA. Thus, petitioners cannot and should not be held liable for this transaction as no irregularity attended the same; their participation in the evaluation process is minimal while documents required by the COA and the rules have been submitted and complied by them in good faith. [23] Ruling of the Court The petition for certiorari is bereft of merit. I. COA acted within its constitutional mandate. Petitioners contend tha