Scribd
Upload
93 views3 pages

Mison V COA

The Commission on Audit (COA) denied a claim filed by claimants for the payment of a vessel that sank while in the custody of the Bureau of Customs. The manager of the COA's Technical Service Office issued the denial, but the claimants argued this was invalid as only the full COA could make such a decision. The Acting COA Chairman later reconsidered and declared the vessel sank due to the illegal custody of the Bureau of Customs, so the COA would not object to the claim. The Supreme Court ruled the original denial was void as the manager had no authority to decide for the COA, and the Acting Chairman could not validate it either, as only the full COA acting

Uploaded by

Parungao Sacdalan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
93 views3 pages

Mison V COA

The Commission on Audit (COA) denied a claim filed by claimants for the payment of a vessel that sank while in the custody of the Bureau of Customs. The manager of the COA's Technical Service Office issued the denial, but the claimants argued this was invalid as only the full COA could make such a decision. The Acting COA Chairman later reconsidered and declared the vessel sank due to the illegal custody of the Bureau of Customs, so the COA would not object to the claim. The Supreme Court ruled the original denial was void as the manager had no authority to decide for the COA, and the Acting Chairman could not validate it either, as only the full COA acting

Uploaded by

Parungao Sacdalan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Mison v.

COA

Facts:
The case is about customs case no. 813 where the commissioner of customs,
MIson, declaring illegal the seizure by elements of the Philippine Navy of the M/V
"Hyojin Maru" a vessel of Japanese registry, and ordered the release of the vessel and
its cargo to the claimants, Chan Chiu On and Cheung I.
However, the vessel was never released because it sank while in the custody of
the bureau of customs and it could not be salvaged. The claimants filed a claim with the
Commission on Audit for the payment of the vessel.
Acting thereon "(b)y authority of the Acting Chairman," Mr. Rogelio B. Espiritu,
Manager, Technical Service Office of the COA, denied the claim for the reasons set
forth in his registered letter to the claimant's lawyer dated November 3, 1977-captioned
"Decision No. 77-142."

In a letter dated May 10, 1978, claimant’s counsel, Mr. David replied that said
Decision No. 77-142-rendered only by the Manager, Technical Service Office of the
COA, and "not (by) the Acting Chairman, much less . . . the Commission on Audit" —
was void because the matter could validly be acted upon only by "the Commission on
Audit duly constituted, by the appointment and qualification of its Chairman and two
Commissioners," "as specifically provided by Section 2, Article XII-D of the (1973)
Constitution. In a 4th Indorsement dated June 22, 1987 addressed "to the Auditor,
Bureau of Customs," Chairman Eufemio C. Domingo, acting "FOR THE
COMMISSION," reconsidered Decision No. 77-142 of Acting Commissioner of Audit
Tantuico, supra.

He declared that the vessel sank while in illegal custody of the Bureau of
Customs, which "should have pre-eminently taken adequate measures to preserve" it
but did not.; hence, he declared that "this Commission will interpose no objection" to the
instant claim, subject to the usual auditing and accounting requirements." Petitioner
seasonably filed with this Court a petition for certiorari to nullify said COA Decisions
pursuant to Section 7, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution

Issue:
WON the decision to reverse the Espiritu Decision was proper?

Ruling:
In the first place the "Espiritu decision" was void ab initio. As manager of the
COA Technical Service Office, Mr. Espiritu obviously had no power whatever to render
and promulgate a decision of or for the Commission. Indeed, even the Chairman, alone,
had not that power. As clearly set out in the Constitution then in force, the power was
lodged in the Commission on Audit, "composed of a Chairman and two
Commissioners."
It was the Commission, as a collegial body, which then as now, had
the jurisdiction to "(d)ecide any case brought before it within sixty days from the date of
its submission for resolution," subject to review by the Supreme Court on certiorari.

Hence, the adoption or ratification of the Espiritu decision by the Acting COA
Chairman was inconsequential. Ratification cannot validate an act void ab initio
because done absolutely without authority. The act has to be done anew by the person
or entity duly endowed with authority to do so.

Moreover, even conceding the contrary, no proper ratification or validation could


have been effected by the Acting Chairman since he was not the Commission, and he
himself had no power to decide any case brought before the Commission, that power, to
repeat, being lodged only in the Commission itself, as a collegial body. it must be made
clear that the Espiritu Decision was not merely "technically invalid," as the petitioner
describes it. It was substantively void ab initio, because rendered without jurisdiction. It
had an essential inherent defect that could not be cured or waived.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy