Jacomille v. Abaya

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 212381. July 25, 2016.]

REYNALDO M. JACOMILLE, petitioner, vs. HON. JOSEPH EMILIO A. ABAYA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS [DOTC]; ATTY. ALFONSO V. TAN, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE LAND TRANSPORTATION OFFICE [LTO]; HON. FLORENCIO ABAD, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT [DBM]; HON. ARSENIO BALISACAN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [NEDA]; HON. MARIA GRACIA M. PULIDO TAN, IN HER CAPACITY AS CHAIRPERSON OF THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT [COA]; AND POWER PLATES DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS, INC./J. KNIERIEM B.V. GOES [JKG], AS REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CHRISTIAN S. CALALANG, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 25 July 2016 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 212381 (Reynaldo M. Jacomille v. Hon. Joseph Emilio A. Abaya, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Transportation and Communications [DOTC]; Atty. Alfonso V. Tan, Jr., in his capacity as Assistant Secretary of the Land Transportation Office [LTO]; Hon. Florencio Abad, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management [DBM]; Hon. Arsenio Balisacan, in his capacity as Director General of the National Economic and Development Authority [NEDA]; Hon. Maria Gracia M. Pulido Tan, in her capacity as Chairperson of the Commission on Audit [COA]; and Power Plates Development Concepts, Inc./J. Knieriem B.V. Goes [JKG], as represented by its Managing Director, Christian S. Calalang.)

Before this Court is a Motion for Reconsideration, 1 dated July 27, 2015, filed by Reynaldo M. Jacomille (petitioner) praying that the Court reverse and set aside its April 22, 2015 Decision 2 which dismissed his petition for being moot and academic.

Petitioner argues that: the irregularities of the Motor Vehicle License Plate Standardization Program (MVPSP) rendered it null and void; the July 13, 2015 Notice of Disallowance 3(ND) of the Commission on Audit (COA) stated that the disbursements in the MVPSP were irregular and illegal; there was no specific appropriation in the 2014 General Appropriation Act (GAA) for the MVPSP; that the irregularity in the procurement process of the MVPSP could not be cured by the subsequent appropriation in the 2014 GAA; and the petition had not been rendered moot and academic as the irregular bidding processes for the MVPSP must be struck down as billions of pesos in public funds were involved.

In its Comment, 4 dated December 15, 2015, respondent J. Knieriem B.V. Goes and Power Plates Development Concepts, Inc. (JKG-Power Plates) countered that the motion for reconsideration did not raise any new grounds. Moreover, it asserted that the Court's decision must take precedence over the ND issued by the COA.

In its Comment, 5 dated March 8, 2016, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) averred that the issues raised in petitioner's motion for reconsideration were mere reiterations of the arguments in his petition; that the three-month period under Section 38 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9184 was merely directory in character; that ND was not yet final and executory because it was timely assailed before the COA En Banc; and that a Multi-year Obligation Authority (MYOA) was not required prior to the procurement of a multi-year project under a multi-year contract.

The Court's Ruling

The motion for reconsideration is denied.

As stated in the April 22, 2015 decision, the essence of petitioner's case was that the MVPSP was not sufficiently funded under the law. Accordingly, the Court was tasked to resolve a purely question of law whether the MVPSP was adequately funded in either the 2013 or 2014 GAA. The Court, at that time, did not have any factual basis to determine the merits of some allegations like the accountability of the officials involved. Thus, the Court stated that it should be the proper government agency which should first review and resolve it. Thus, in the April 22, 2015 decision, the Court wrote: HSAcaE

CONCLUSION

The Court concludes that MVPSP did not follow the timelines provided in Sec. 37 of R.A. No. 9184. As earlier recited, the project did not have the adequate appropriation when its procurement was commenced on February 20, 2013, contrary to the provisions of Sections 5a, 7 and 20 of R.A. No. 9184. The DOTC and the LTO likewise failed to secure the MYOA before the start of the procurement process even though MVPSP is MYP involving MYC. All these irregularities tainted the earlier procurement process and rendered it null and void.

At the outset, however, the Court has stated that the present petition has been rendered moot and academic by the appropriation for the full amount of the project fund in GAA 2014. Said appropriation "cured" whatever defect the process had.

As to whether the responsible public officials should be held accountable for the irregularities in the procurement process of MVPSP, the Court deems that it is not the proper forum to resolve the issue as it is not a trier of facts and it cannot receive new evidence from the parties to aid it in the prompt resolution of the issue. [Italization supplied]

The Court then also noted that in the 2014 GAA, Congress had appropriated the amount of P4,843,753,000.00 for the MVPSP project. Consequently, the Court deemed it proper not to question the wisdom of the legislative department in appropriating the full budget of the MVPSP in the GAA 2014. As the MVPSP was adequately funded by law when it was signed by the contracting parties, the petition became moot and academic. With that, the duty of the Court in the present petition was discharged.

In the subject motion for reconsideration, petitioner attached the COA's ND for which reason he argued that the disbursements in the MVPSP were disallowed due to some irregularities. Notably, the said ND was issued after the Court promulgated its April 22, 2015 decision. It being issued subsequently, the Court cannot cover it in a motion for reconsideration.

The Court, however, takes judicial notice that the ND and the MVPSP are now the subjects of a pending petition before the Court, docketed as G.R. No. 219683, entitled De la Cruz v. Ochoa. As correctly observed by the OSG, the present petition raised legal issues centering on the procurement of the MVPSP; while the issues raised in G.R. No. 219683 refer to the implementation of the MVPSP. 6

Accordingly, the COA's ND should be tackled in G.R. No. 219683, as the present petition only dealt with the questions of law regarding MVPSP's procurement. The factual finding of the COA may be fully scrutinized therein because in exceptional cases, questions of fact may be tackled by the Court. 7 The resolution of G.R. No. 219683 would once and for all settle the validity of the MVPSP, the propriety of the ND and the accountability of the officers involved.

WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

 

MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court

By:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 414-428.

2. Id. at 382-409.

3. Id. at 431-439.

4. Id. at 444-448.

5. Id. at 482-505.

6. Id. at 458.

7. Gupilan-Aguilar v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 197307, February 26, 2014, 717 SCRA 503.