The Commission on Audit denied a claim filed by claimants for the payment of a vessel that sank prior to its release. The decision was made by the Manager of the Technical Services Office of COA claiming to act with authority of the Acting Chairman. The decision was later ratified by the Chairman acting for the commission. However, the claimants argued that the decision was void as the Constitution specifies that only the Commission on Audit, as a collegial body consisting of a Chairman and two Commissioners, has the authority to render such decisions. The Supreme Court agreed finding that neither the Manager nor Chairman individually had the power to decide cases brought before the Commission, which must act as a collegial body.
The Commission on Audit denied a claim filed by claimants for the payment of a vessel that sank prior to its release. The decision was made by the Manager of the Technical Services Office of COA claiming to act with authority of the Acting Chairman. The decision was later ratified by the Chairman acting for the commission. However, the claimants argued that the decision was void as the Constitution specifies that only the Commission on Audit, as a collegial body consisting of a Chairman and two Commissioners, has the authority to render such decisions. The Supreme Court agreed finding that neither the Manager nor Chairman individually had the power to decide cases brought before the Commission, which must act as a collegial body.
The Commission on Audit denied a claim filed by claimants for the payment of a vessel that sank prior to its release. The decision was made by the Manager of the Technical Services Office of COA claiming to act with authority of the Acting Chairman. The decision was later ratified by the Chairman acting for the commission. However, the claimants argued that the decision was void as the Constitution specifies that only the Commission on Audit, as a collegial body consisting of a Chairman and two Commissioners, has the authority to render such decisions. The Supreme Court agreed finding that neither the Manager nor Chairman individually had the power to decide cases brought before the Commission, which must act as a collegial body.
Doctrine: COA as a collegial body Q. Hyojin Maru, a seized vessel by the Bureau of Customs sank prior to its release to its claimants. Such claimants then filed a claim with COA for the payment of the vessel. But this claim was denied by Mr. Rogelio Espiritu, Manager Technical Services Office(TSO) of COA claiming to be acting "(b)y authority of the Acting Chairman," The decision was eventually ratified by Chairman Domingo acting for the commission. Claimants now question the authority of the TSO Manager and COA Chair, alleging that the decision 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. Are the claimants contention correct? A. YES. The decision is void ab initio. The TSO manager had no power whatever to render and promulgate a decision of or for the Commission. Indeed, even the Chairman, alone, had not that power. ." It was the Commission ("composed of a Chairman and two Commissioners), as a collegial body, had the jurisdiction Further, the ratification was also inconsequential. Ratification cannot validate an act void ab initio because it was done absolutely without authority. 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. (Mison v. COA, 187 SCRA 445)