BUISAN v. COA

Madag Buisan, et al. v. Commission of Audit and Department of Public Works and Highways

G.R. No. 212376

January 31, 2017

FACTS:

In 1989, the DPWH undertook the construction of the Liguasan Cut-off Channel (Project) in Tunggol, Pagalungan, Maguindanao, to minimize the perennial problem of flooding in the area. In April 2001, the DPWH received various claims from land owners for damages allegedly caused to their properties, crops and improvements by the premature opening of the Project. Hence, the Regional Director (RD), DPWH Regional Office (R.O.) No. XII, Cotabato City, investigated the claims. The DPWH R.O. No. XII and the Technical Working Group (TWG) recommended in 2004 to pay just compensation to the claimants. The TWG, however, noted that since the event occurred in 1989, it could not account physically the actual quantity of the damaged crops and properties. In 2006, an ad hoc committee was created to determine the legality and propriety of the claims. However, due to the considerable lapse of time and the insufficiency of evidence, no final resolution was made by the DPWH. The claims were forwarded to the RD of the DPWH R.O. No. XII to be returned to the claimants, as such are considered to be under the jurisdiction of the COA pursuant to Rule VIII of the 2009 Revised Rules of Procedure of the COA.

On April 14, 2010, the petitioners, represented by Mayor Bai Annie C. Montawal (Montawal), filed a petition with the COA, praying that the DPWH be ordered to• pay the petitioners the sum of P122, 051,850.00 as compensation for their damaged crops, properties and improvements. On September 16, 2010, Buisan filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition alleging that Montawal was not authorized to represent them. In fact, Buisan and the other claimants filed a separate petition with the COA based on that same money claim.

 In its Answer, the DPWH averred that the petitioners failed to establish that they are the owners of crops and properties allegedly damaged, and that the damage was caused by the construction of the Project. Moreover, the DPWH asserted that the petitioners' cause of action had already prescribed.

The COA denied the money claims of the petitioners. The COA held that for the petitioners' failure to file their money claims within a reasonable time, they are deemed to have committed laches. Furthermore, the petitioners' cause of action had already prescribed in view of Article 1146 of the Civil Code. The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, but the same was denied by the COA for lack of merit.

ISSUE:

WHETHER THE COA GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FINDING THAT THE PETITIONERS' CLAIM WAS BARRED BY LACHES AND PRESCRIPTION

HELD:

No. The Supreme Court denies the petition.

ART. 1146. The following actions must be instituted within four years: (1) Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff;             (2) Upon a quasi-delict.

Undeniably, the petitioners' money claims which were only filed with the DPWH in 2004 or even in 2001 had already prescribed. As correctly pointed out by the Office of the Solicitor General, "it will be the height of injustice for respondent DPWH to be confronted with stale claims, where verification on the plausibility of the allegations remains difficult, either because the condition of the alleged inundation of crops has changed, or the physical impossibility of accounting for the lost and damaged crops due to the considerable lapse of time.

On the other hand, "laches has been defined as the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence could or should have been done earlier.

In the case at bar, laches has set in as the elements24 thereof are present. Firstly, the premature opening by the DPWH of the Project allegedly causing flash floods, and damaging the petitioners' properties took place in 1989 or even in 1992. Secondly, the petitioners took 15 years to assert their rights when they formally filed a complaint in 2004 against the DPWH. Thirdly, as the petitioners failed to file a formal suit for their claims before the COA, there is an apparent lack of notice that would give the DPWH the opportunity to defend itself.

Under Commonwealth Act No. 327, 25 as amended by Section 26 of Presidential Decree No. 1445, 26 which were the applicable laws at the time the cause of action arose, the COA has primary jurisdiction over money claims against government agencies and instrumentalities. Moreover, Rule II, Section 1 (b) of the 2009 Revised Rules of Procedure of the COA27 specifically enumerated those matters falling under COA's exclusive jurisdiction, which include "money claims due from or owing to any government agency." Rule VIII, Section l (a) further provides that COA shall have original jurisdiction over money claims against the Government, among others. Therefore, the petitioners' money claims have prescribed and are barred by laches for their failure to timely file the petition.