Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
103309
NOCON, J.:
Sometime in 1985 the City of Cebu decided to construct a modern abattoir. For this project, the City
Treasurer, Ricardo Pestano, issued a certificate of availability of funds dated April 30, 1985, in the amount of
(P5,419,180.00), specifically "for the construction of Cebu City Abbatoir (sic)." H. Franco Construction
Company, Inc. (HFCCI) was awarded to do the construction of the abattoir. However on March 13, 1986,
Sen. John H. Osmea, then Officer-In-Charge of the City of Cebu, ordered the suspension of the project and
review of the contract by the COA. He also wrote HFCCI asking them to account for the value of their
progress. On April 24, 1986, HFCCI claimed the amount of P2,142,964.29 as the value of the work
accomplished. Unable to collect the said amount after so many demands, HFCCI instituted a civil action, 3
dated May 21, 1987 against the City of Cebu, for recovery of investment and damages.
In its answer dated June 5, 1987, the City of Cebu, while admitting having entered into a contract with
HFCCI, alleged that the contract it entered into was null and void as declared by the Commission on Audit in
its 2nd Indorsement dated September 4, 1986. Therefore whatever amount is due to HFCCI is to the sole
liability of the officer or officers who entered into the said contract. The parties entered in a compromise
agreement to the effect that as a full and final settlement to the claim of HFCCI, the City of Cebu shall pay
the amount of (P1,500,000.00. The trial court's judgment based on the compromise agreement was referred
to the COA's Regional Director, who in turn indorsed the same to the Chairman of the COA. In its 3rd
Indorsement dated May 2, 1989, the COA ruled that the construction of abattoir was void and since no
appeal was taken it became final. Under the circumstances, this Commission concurs in the view expressed
by that Office that the expenditure involved would be the personal liability of the officer directly responsible
for its incurrence (Sec. 103, P.D. No. 1445).
Petitioner's request for reconsideration of the above ruling was denied in COA's 5th Indorsement dated
January 23, 1991, 7 hence this petition,
ISSUE: Whether or not the COA acted with grave abuse of discretion.
RULING: No. The Court ruled that Commission on Audit has the power, authority and duty to examine, audit
and settle all accounts pertaining to revenue and receipts of and expenditures or uses of funds and property,
owned of held in trust by, or pertaining to, the government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies or
instrumentalities. The City of Cebu relied on the above pronouncement and interposed the same as its
affirmative defense, so much so that petitioner cannot now assert that it was void having been issued in
excess of COA's jurisdiction. A party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court or an administrative body to
secure affirmative relief against his opponent and after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or
question that same jurisdiction. It is not right for a party who has affirmed and invoked the jurisdiction of a
court in a particular matter to secure an affirmative relief, to afterwards deny the same jurisdiction to escape
a penalty. Thus petition is dismissed.