By Atty. Julius Gregory B. Delgado
FORMER MUNICIPAL MAYOR CLARITO A. POBLETE, ET AL. VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, (G.R. NO.222810, JULY 11, 2023): PAYMENT OF DOCKET FEES IN A PETITION FOR REVIEW FILED BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT PROPER IS MANDATORY AND JURISDICTIONAL
Petitioners former Mayor Clarito Poblete, Ma. Dolores Jeaneth Bulawan and Nephtali Salazar,
were the Municipal Mayor, Municipal Budget Officer, and Municipal Accountant, respectively, of the Municipality of Silang, Cavite. On June 2, 2011, a Special Audit Team of the Commission on Audit (“COA”) issued Notices of Disallowance for various projects worth a total of Php2,891,558.31 undertaken in years 2004, 2006 and 2007 but were appropriated during the 2010 Budget in violation of Section 350 of the Local Government Code which provides that: “All lawful expenditures and obligations incurred during a fiscal year shall be taken up in the accounts of that year.” The COA Regional Office denied the Appeal filed by the petitioners and ruled that pursuant to P.D. No. 1445 and case law, the contracts for various projects in 2004, 2006 and 2007 are void for being entered into without the necessary appropriation and certificate of availability of funds. Petitioners filed a Petition for Review with the COA Proper, through the Secretariat. The COA Proper denied petitioners’
petition for being filed out of time. It ruled that petitioners failed to pay the prescribed fees necessary for the perfection of an appeal within the prescribed period. Hence, petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court questioning the ruling of the COA Central Office. The Supreme Court observed that the Petition for Review before COA Proper was filed on August 23, 2013. In a Letter dated August 29, 2013, the Commission Secretariat required the petitioners to pay the filing fee. Yet, the petitioners paid the filing fee only on October 14, 2013, or after roughly one and half months. The Court held that it was belatedly filed beyond the six (6)-month period under the 2009 Revised Rules of Procedure of COA (“RRPC”). Section 3, Rule VII of the RRPC, an appeal shall be taken within the time remaining of the six (6) months period under Section 4, Rule V, taking into account the suspension of the running thereof under Section 5 of the same Rule in case of appeals from the Director’s decision, or under Sections 9 and 10 of Rule VI in case of decision of the Adjudication and Settlement Board. Section 4, Rule V of the RRPC provides that an appeal must be filed within six (6) months after receipt of the decision appealed from. The Supreme Court held that considering that “the petitioners received the NDs on June 6,
2011, they perfected their appeals only on October 2013, or 212 days after receiving the NDs. Hence, their appeal was perfected beyond the six months or the 180-day reglementary period.” The Court also held that “It bears to stress that the payment of filing fees in both judicial and quasi-judicial tribunals is essential in our jurisdiction. It is recognized as a limitation to the right to appeal, which is neither a natural right nor part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege that must be exercised only in a manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. To be sure, the RRPC was crafted to ensure the orderly disposition of cases.”
On the substantive issues, the Court did not sustain the arguments of the petitioners. The Court
refused to apply the quantum meruit principle in Department of Public Works and Highways vs. Quiwa, et al., 675 Phil. 9 (2011) as the factual milieu therein is different from the instant case as there was an appropriation and payment to contractor therein was not per se illegal. Also, in Quiwa, the agency engaged the contractor for an emergency project in relation to Mt. Pinatubo Rehabilitation Project. The Supreme Court also did not apply the Arias Doctrine to petitioner former Mayor Poblete as “a detailed examination is not necessary to see that the projects being funded for the 2010 budget were projects incurred in 2004, 2006 and 2007 in clear contravention of the law.”