EN BANC
G.R. No. 213821, January 26, 2021
V. C. PONCE COMPANY, INC. Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON, HON. MARIA GRACIA M. PULIDO TAN, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HON. ROGELIO L. SINGSON, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
INTING, J.:
Before the Court is a Petition1 for Certiorari with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court assailing Decision No. 2012-0602 dated May 10, 2012 of the Commission on Audit (COA). The COA denied the money claim filed by V. C. Ponce Company, Inc. (VCPCI), represented by its President, Vicente C. Ponce (Ponce), for payment on the construction of the Mandaue-Opon Bridge (Mandaue-Opon Bridge project) over Mactan Channel, Cebu, Phase II amounting to P11,543,776,318.36. The COA further ordered VCPCI to refund the overpayment in the amount of P21,511,666.99.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent DPWH is hereby held liable to petitioner and therefore respondent DPWH is hereby DIRECTED:The DPWH filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals (CA).
(a) To pay petitioner the sum of PhP34,039,04l.82 - as "actual cost" for Phase II, as of July, 1973, date of completion of the Mandaue-Opon Bridge less PhP33,795,346.43 paid direct to petitioner herein from toll collections; (b) To pay petitioner the amount of PhP4,411,328.33 for interest fixed at 11 112% per annum of PhP9,197,194.50, from July, 1973 until fully paid in 1979; (c) [W]ith respect to interest due on the sum of PhP24,841,847.82, the other part of the Php34,039,041.82 "actual cost", which is over and above the original contract amount of PhP9,197,194.50, petitioner and respondent are hereby DIRECTED to immediately submit to arbitration, since the banks where the Certificates of Indebtedness were put up as collateral, were not made parties to this law suit, in order to determine (i) the interest due on the sum of PhP24,841,847.82, the other part of the PhP34,039,041.82 "actual cost" which is over and above the original contract amount of PhP9,197,194.50, from September 4, 1973 until fully paid, at varied interest rates as certified to by the Bangko Sentral to be prevailing from time to time to have been charged by banks, where the Certificates of Indebtedness issued by the government were used as collateral - as guaranteed under the express provisions of Certificates of Indebtedness; and deducting the sum of PhP71,549,006.78 amount already paid directly to UCPB and Metrobank as partial payment for interest due to banks on loans covered by the Certificates of Indebtedness as collateral; (ii) the cost of money on the sum of PhP24,841,847.82 in view of the inflation and exchange rate differential from the P[hP]6.78 per dollar on September 4, 1973 to the present PhP55.25 per dollar as of January 30, 2004; (d) To pay petitioner the sum of PhP5,108,256.10 which is 15% of PhP34,055,041.51 representing allowance for contractor's profit; and (e) To pay petitioner legal interest fixed at 12% per annum from September 4, 1973 until fully paid on the sum of PhP5,108,256.10.
SO ORDERED.10
WHEREFORE, the Order dated 29 December 2006 granting a Writ of Execution in favor of private respondent VC Ponce Company, Inc. and the corresponding Writ of Execution and Notice of Garnishment are NULLIFIED, and the temporary restraining order issued by this Court is made PERMANENT.The Decision of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 97970 dated May 29, 2007 became final and executory on June 22, 2007.19 Following the ruling, VCPCI filed a money claim before the COA.
The Commission on Audit is DIRECTED to determine and ascertain with dispatch the total compensation due to VC Ponce Company, Inc. for the construction of the Mandaue-Opon Bridge in accordance with the decision in Civil Case No. Q-96-28795, and to allow payment thereof upon the completion of such determination.
SO ORDERED.18
Particulars
Amount
(A) Difference between P34,039,041.82, the "actual cost" for Phase II, and P33, 795,346.43 revenue from toll collections.
(A.1) Interest on the difference (P243,695.39) computed by VCPCI at 12% compounded annually from November 16, 1985 to February 28, 2009
(B) Interest at 11 ½% per annum of P9,197,194.50, the original contract amount, from July 1973 until fully paid in 1979
(B.1) Interest computed by VCPCI at the rate of. 11.5% on the interest of P4,411,328.33 from January 1980 up to February 28, 2009
(C) Interest due on the sum of P24,841,847.82, the other part of the P34,039,041.82 "actual cost," which is over and above the original contract amount of P9,197,194.50
(D) Contractor's profit - 15% of P34,055,041.51
(E) Legal interest fixed at 12% per annum from September 4, 1973 until fully paid on the sum ofTotal
P 243,695.39
3,173,927.09
4,411,328.33
101,158,432.22
11,148,708,894.12
5,108,256.10
280,971,785.11
P P11,543,776,318.3620
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition for money claim of Mr. Vicente C. Ponce relative to the Construction of the Mandaue-Opon Bridge over Mactan Channel, Cebu Phase II in the amount of P11,543,776,318.36 is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, Mr. Vicente C. Ponce is required to refund the overpayment in the amount of P21,511,666.99.22
There is merit to Chairperson Aguinaldo's opinion pertaining to the two (2) main types of money claims which the COA may be confronted with.
The first type covers money claims originally filed with the COA. Jurisprudence specifies the nature of the money claims which may be brought to the COA at first instance. In Euro-Med Laboratories, Phil., Inc. v. Province of Batangas, we explicitly ordained that these cases are limited to liquidated claims, viz.:cralawredThe scope of the COA's authority to take cognizance of claims is circumscribed, however, by an unbroken line of cases holding statutes of similar import to mean only liquidated claims, or those determined or readily determinable from vouchers, invoices, and such other papers within reach of accounting officers. Petitioner's claim was for a fixed amount and although respondent took issue with the accuracy of petitioner's summation of its accountabilities, the amount thereof was readily determinable from the receipts, invoices and other documents. Thus, the claim was well within the COA's jurisdiction under the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines. (Emphasis and Underscoring Supplied.)
We agree with Chairperson Aguinaldo that the following discussion in Uy involved the first type of money claims, viz.:SECOND. The case at bar brings to the fore the parameters of the power of the respondent COA to decide administrative cases involving expenditure of public funds. Undoubtedly, the exercise of this power involves the quasi-judicial aspect of government audit. As statutorily envisioned, this pertains to the "examination, audit, and settlement of all debts and claims of any sort due from or owing to the Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities." The process of government audit is adjudicative in nature. The decisions of COA presuppose an adjudicatory process involving the determination and resolution of opposing claims. Its work as adjudicator of money claims for or against the government means the exercise of judicial discretion. It includes the investigation, weighing of evidence, and resolving whether items should or should not be included, or as applied to claim, whether it should be allowed or disallowed in whole or in part. Its conclusions are not mere opinions but are decisions which may be elevated to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party. (Emphasis Supplied.)
We, too agree with Chairperson Aguinaldo that the second type of money claims refers to those which arise from a final and executory judgment of a court or arbitral body. He also correctly cited Uy, reiterating our undeviating jurisprudence that final judgments may no longer be reviewed or, in any way be modified directly or indirectly by a higher court, not even by the Supreme Court, much less, by any other official, branch or department of government.
On this score, we lay down a conceptual framework for the guidance of the COA, the Bench, and the Bar pertaining to the COA's audit power vis-a-vis the second type of money claims which may be brought before it during the execution stage.29
(1) Once a court or other adjudicative body validly acquires jurisdiction over a money claim against the government, it exercises and retains jurisdiction over the subject matter to the exclusion of all others, including the COA; (2) The COA has no appellate review power over the decisions of any other court or tribunal; (3) The COA is devoid of power to disregard the principle of immutability of final judgments; and (4) The COA's exercise of discretion in approving or disapproving money claims that have been determined by final judgment is akin to the power of an execution court.31
Endnotes:
* on official business.
** Took no part.
1Rollo, Vol. 1, pp. 3-24.
2Id. at 27-36; signed by Chairperson Ma. Gracia M. Pulido Tan with Commissioners Juanito G. Espino, Jr. and Heidi I. Mendoza, and attested by Director IV and Commission Secretariat Fortunata M. Rubico.
3Id. at 28.
4 As culled from the Decision dated January 30, 2004 of Branch 227, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City in Civil Case No. Q-96-28795 as penned by Presiding Judge Vicente Q. Roxas, id. at 52-54.
5Id. at 55.
6 Entitled, "An Act Appropriating Funds for Public Works, Synchronizing the Same with Previous Public Works Appropriations," approved on September 16, 1967.
7Rollo, Vol. 1, pp. 56-57.
8Id. at 57.
9Id. at 52-95; penned by Presiding Judge Vicente Q. Roxas.
10Id. at 93-95.
11Id. at 99-107; penned by Asscociate Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico with Associate Justices Danilo B. Pine and Vicente S.E. Veloso, concurring.
12Id. at 341-375.
13Id. at 97.
14 See Entry of Judgment dated November 18, 2005 in G.R. No. 167294, id. at 96.
15Id. at 108-112.
16Id. at 113; penned by Presiding Judge Elvira D.C. Panganiban.
17Id. at 15-123; penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario (now a member of the Court) with Associate Justices Regalado E. Maambong and Magdangal M. De Leon. concurring.
18Id..at 122-123. ·
19 See Entry of Judgment dated June 25, 2007 in CA-G.R. SP No. 97970, id. at 125.
20 Id. at 27-28.
21Id. at 27-37.
22Id. at 36.
23 G.R. No. 238671, June 2, 2020.
24Id.
25Id., citing Development Bank of the Philippines v. COA, 424 Phil. 411, 430, 434-439 (2002).
26Id., citing Civil Service Commission v. Pobre, 481 Phil. 676, 685 (2004).
27Id., citing De Jesus v. Civil Service Commission, 508 Phil. 599, 608-610 (2005).
28 Id., citing Tourism lnfrastructure and Enterprise Zone Authority (TIEZA) v. Global-V Builders Co., G.R. No. 219708, October 3, 2018.
29Id.
30Id.
31Id.