GR 213821; (January, 2021) (Digest)
G.R. No. 213821 , January 26, 2021
V. C. PONCE COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, vs. 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.
FACTS
Petitioner V. C. Ponce Company, Inc. (VCPCI) filed a money claim with the Commission on Audit (COA) for payment on the construction of the Mandaue-Opon Bridge, Phase II, amounting to P11,543,776,318.36. This claim stemmed from a 1996 petition for mandamus filed by VCPCI against the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) for recomputation of its claim. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of VCPCI in 2004, directing DPWH to pay specific amounts for actual cost, interest, and contractor’s profit. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, and the Supreme Court denied DPWH’s petition, making the RTC decision final and executory. However, when VCPCI moved for execution, the CA nullified the writ, ruling that money claims against the government must first be filed with COA. VCPCI then filed its claim with COA. In its assailed Decision, COA denied VCPCI’s claim and instead ordered it to refund an overpayment of P21,511,666.99. COA disallowed the payment of interest on the amount over the original contract price, ruling that the government had already overpaid for the project through toll collections and direct payments to banks for loans collateralized by government-issued Certificates of Indebtedness.
ISSUE
Whether the Commission on Audit committed grave abuse of discretion in denying VCPCI’s money claim and ordering a refund.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside COA Decision No. 2012-060, and remanded the case to COA for payment of the money claim in accordance with the final and executory RTC Decision. The Court held that COA committed grave abuse of discretion by disregarding the final and executory judgment of the RTC, which had conclusively determined the government’s liability to VCPCI. COA’s role was limited to auditing and ensuring payment aligned with this final judgment. Instead, COA substituted the RTC’s factual findings and computations with its own, effectively reviewing the merits of a final decision, which it had no authority to do. The final RTC Decision, having been affirmed up to the Supreme Court, was binding on COA.