SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 183444. October 12, 2011.]

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS , petitioner,

vs. RONALDO E. QUIWA, doing business under the name
"R.E.Q. Construction," EFREN N. RIGOR, doing business
under the name "Chiara Construction," ROMEO R.
DIMATULAC, doing business under the name "Ardy
Construction" and FELICITAS C. SUMERA, doing business
under the name "F.C.S. Construction," represented by her
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT ROMEO M. DE LEON, respondents.

DECISION

SERENO, J : p

Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari is the 26 June 2008

Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 76584, 1 affirming the trial
court's judgment in favor of herein respondents in their money claims against
petitioner DPWH.

The Factual Antecedents

With the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 and the consequent onslaught
of lahar and floodwater, the rehabilitation of the affected areas became urgent.
River systems needed to be channeled, dredged, desilted and diked to prevent
flooding and overflowing of lahar; and to avert damage to life, limb and
property of the people in the area.

In 1992, a number of contractors, including herein respondents, were

engaged by the DPWH through its Project Manager, Philip F. Meñez, for the
aforesaid services pursuant to an emergency project under the Mount Pinatubo
Rehabilitation Project. It was alleged that prior to the engagement of the
contractors, Undersecretary Teodoro T. Encarnacion of DPWH, who had overall
supervision of the infrastructure and flood control projects, met with the
contractors and insisted on the urgency of the said projects. Respondents
claimed that they had accomplished works on the Sacobia-Bamban-Parua River
Control Project pursuant to this emergency project. 2 Ronaldo E. Quiwa claimed
that under two construction agreements with the DPWH, his construction
company, the R.E.Q. Construction, had accomplished the channeling of the
Sacobia-Bamban-Parua River Control Project for the excavated spoils of 69,835
cubic meters, pegged at P3,448,258.25 for one project, and 80,480 cubic
meters at the cost of P4,019,976.00 for another, or a total amount of
P7,508,234.25. 3 Efren Rigor, on behalf of Chiara Construction, alleged that the
sum of money due him for the channeling of the Sacobia-Bamban-Parua River
was P8,854,654.10 for three accomplished projects. 4 Romeo Dimatulac of Ardy
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Construction claimed P1,402,928.45 for double diking; 5 and Felicitas C.
Sumera, P4,232,363.40 for her construction company. 6 HSDCTA

Initially, R.E.Q. Construction filed its money claim with the DPWH, which
referred the matter to the Commission on Audit. 7 The COA returned the claims
to the DPWH with the information that the latter had already been given the
funds and the authority to disburse them. 8 When respondent Quiwa filed his
claims with the DPWH, it failed to act on these, resulting in the withholding of
the payment due him, despite the favorable report and Certification of
Completion made by the Assistant Project Manager for Operations, Engineer
Rolando G. Santos. 9 Prompted by the prolonged inaction of the DPWH on their
claims, respondents jointly filed an action for a sum of money against the
DPWH. 10 The case was decided in their favor by the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Manila, Branch 51, in Civil Case No. 96-77180. 11
As found by the RTC, the respondents, plaintiffs therein, were duly
licensed contractors, who had completed the construction works on the
Sacobia-Bamban-Parua River as certified by the DPWH itself. In 1992, the
funding for the infrastructure and other work requirements under the Mt.
Pinatubo Rehabilitation Program in the amount of P400 million pesos was
initially allocated by the government, and was later increased to P700M.
Despite the completion of respondents' works in accordance with the
specifications and the allocation of the funds to cover the said services, the
DPWH unjustly denied the claims. The court a quo gave credence to the
evidence presented by respondents, consisting of contract agreements;
statement of work accomplished, certified and signed by the engineers of the
DPWH; and testimonial evidence of witnesses. It ruled that respondents were
able to prove their claims by a preponderance of evidence. The RTC found that
the contracts between DPWH and the plaintiffs were valid contracts, as all the
requisites thereof — consent, subject matter and cause — were present; and,
notwithstanding the absence of the signature of the regional director on the
agreement executed with Quiwa and Sumera, the contract was ratified when he
affixed his signature to the Inspection and Certification of Completion of the
projects.

The court a quo likewise sustained the claim of Rigor and Dimatulac even
in the absence of a written contract. It held that there was already a perfected
contract, since there was a concurrence of the essential requisites thereof. It
also, in effect, held that DPWH was already estopped from repudiating the
contract, as the latter had already made representations and assurances that
the plaintiffs would be paid for the work that they would do, and as even then
DPWH Undersecretary Teodoro T. Encarnacion had told them to "fast-track" the
project. 12
The RTC also ruled that the claim of the respondents against DPWH was
proper since they had already made a demand on the Commission on Audit
regarding the payment of their construction services. Thus, they first availed
themselves of the proper administrative remedy in filing their claim with COA,
which unfortunately referred the claim to the DPWH. The court a quo also
reasoned that the contracts could not be declared void on the ground of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 absence of a certification of availability of funds issued by the proper
accounting official. It found that there was already an advice of allotment from
the Department of Budget and Management to cover the projects. 13 The
respondents were thus correct in suing the government for the nonpayment of
the services they had rendered. Consequently, the court a quo disposed:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby
ordered in favor of plaintiffs Ronaldo Quiwa doing business under the
name R.E.Q. Construction, Efren N. Rigor, doing business under the
name Chiara Construction, Romeo R. Dimatulac, doing business under
the namme (sic) Ardy Construction and against Felicitas C. Sumera,
doing business under the namee (sic) FC.S. (sic) Construction and
against defendants Department of Public Works and Highways,
Gregorio R. Vigilar, Teodoro T. Encarnacion and Jose P. de Jesus,
ordering them to jointly and solidarily pay plaintiffs the following
amounts:
1) To plaintiff Ronaldo Z. Quiwa

First: The principal sum of P3,488,258.25 representing the actual

work accomplishments of Quiwa's first project, the channeling with
disposal of Sacobia-Bamban-Parua River from Sta. 2 + 100 to Sta. 2 +
500 (left bank) in Bamban, Tarlac and the principal sum of
P3,843,252.90 representing the actual work accomplishments of
Quiwa's second project which is Channeling with Disposal of Sacobia-
Bamban-Parua River from Sta. 1 + 200 to Sta. 1 + 500 at Bamban,
Tarlac with legal rate of interest from July 1992 until fully paid;

Second: The sum of 10% of the total amount due as attorney's

fees; and

Third: The sum equivalent to the lawful fees paid by plaintiff

Quiwa in entering and docketing the action which must be the
proportion of the filing fees for his total claim in the amount of
P7,331,511.115 as costs of suit.
2) To plaintiff Efren Rigor

First: The principal sum of P3,843,252.90 representing the actual

work accomplishments of plaintiff Rigor's first project, the channeling
and disposal of Sacobia-Bamban-Parua River Channeling Section 1 +
200 Sta. 1 + 500 in Bamban, Tarlac, and the principal sum of
P3,155,641.20 representing the actual accomplishments of plaintiff
Rigor's second project which is the Channeling and Disposal Sacobia-
Bamban-Parua River from Station -0 + 700 to Station -1 + 000 in
Bamban, Tarlac with legal rate of interest from July 1992 until fully
paid;

Second: The sum of 10% of the total amount due as attorney's

fees; and

Third: The sum equivalent to the lawful fees paid by Plaintiff

Rigor in entering or docketing the action which must be the proportion
of the filing fees for his total claim in the amount of P6,998,849.10 as
costs of suit.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 3) For Plaintiff Romeo Dimatulac
First: The principal sum of P1,402,928.45 representing the actual
work accomplishments of plaintiff Dimatulac project, the Double Diking
at Sacobia-Bamban-Parua River Control System from Station 2 + 000
to Station 2 + 400 in Bamban, Tarlac with legal rate of interest from
July 1922 until fully paid;

Second: The sum of 10% of the total amount due as attorney's

fees; and
Third: The sum equivalent to the lawful fees paid by plaintiff
Dimatulac in entering and docketing the action which must be the
proportion of the filing fee for his total claim in the amount of
P1,402,928.45 as costs of suit.
4) To plaintiff Felicitas C. Sumera

First: The principal sum of P4,232,363.40 representing the actual

work accomplishments of plaintiff Sumera's project, the Channeling
with disposal of the Sacobia-Bamban-Parua River Control covering
Station -1 = 500 to Station -1 + 800 in Bamban, Tarlac with legal rate
of interest from July 1992 until fully paid; DISHEA

Second: The sum of 10% of the total amount due as attorney's

fees; and

Third: The sum equivalent to the lawful fees paid by plaintiff

Sumera's (sic) in entering and docketing the action which must be the
proportion of the filing fees for her total claim in the amount of
P4,232,363.40 as costs of suit. . (sic)
SO ORDERED.

Not amenable to the trial court's Decision, Petitioner DPWH, through the
Office of the Solicitor General, filed an appeal 14 to question the said Decision.
DPWH mainly argued that there was no valid contract between it and
respondents. 15 It claimed that there was no certification of the availability of
funds issued by the DPWH Chief Accountant or by the head of its accounting
unit as required by Executive Order No. 292, or the Administrative Code of
1987. 16 It also alleged other deficiencies and irregularities, which rendered the
contract void from its inception, such as the absence of the requirements
enumerated in Presidential Decree (P.D.) Nos. 1594 and 1445; and the lack of
authority on the part of Engineer Philip Meñez, Project Manager II of the DPWH
to enter into contracts on behalf of DPWH. DPWH likewise contested the RTC's
award of attorney's fees and costs of suit to respondents.

The Court of Appeals (CA), similar to the court a quo, sided with
respondents. The CA resolved in the affirmative the issue of whether the
respondents are entitled to their claim representing actual expenses for the
construction projects they undertook. It found that there was already a fund
allocation for the projects, and that the payment for the channeling services
rendered by the respondents had been included in the said fund allocation as
testified to by DPWH's witness, Felix Desierto. It ruled that DPWH officials who
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 approved the projects, even though middle-rank, had the authority to bind the
department. The CA held:
. . . [I]t appears that all the procedures followed by the project
managers and plaintiff-appellees were in accordance with the usual
DPWH procedures, such that, there was no reason for plaintiffs-
appellees not to rely on the authority of the project managers who
allowed them to proceed with their projects from start to finish. 17
CTcSIA

The CA further held that revalidation was not part of the contract and,
thus, not a precondition for payment to the respondents. The constitution of the
revalidation team after the commencement of the construction project
indicated that approval by DPWH was not meant to be a condition for the
payment of the project. 18 With the completion of the project, the CA ruled that
the DPWH was estopped from refusing to pay plaintiffs: 19
. . . [I]t is readily seen that defendant-appellant's conduct in
allowing the subject projects to continue without objecting thereto and
in even assigning its own employees to oversee these projects
estopped defendant-appellant from adopting a position that such
projects were not authorized. Without a doubt, such acts induced
plaintiff-appellees to believe that such projects will be honored by
defendant-appellant and that they will be compensated for all their
expenditures. 20

According to the CA, the absence of a written contract with R. Dimatulac

and Rigor did not affect the validity and the enforceability of the contracts
between DPWH and the contractors.

With the affirmance of the RTC Decision, DPWH filed a Petition for Review
21before this Court, alleging that the following were errors committed by the
Court of Appeals: 22
IN NOT FINDING THAT THE PURPORTED CONTRACTS BETWEEN
THE PARTIES ARE NULL AND VOID FROM THE BEGINNING AND HENCE,
NOT BINDING BETWEEN THEM;

IN NOT FINDING THAT [RESPONDENTS QUIWA, ET AL.] HAVE NO

CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST [PETITIONER DPWH]; EHSTcC

IN NOT FINDING THAT THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY'S FEES AND

COSTS OF SUIT IS UNWARRANTED AND HAS NO BASIS IN LAW.

Petitioner insists that there was no valid contract between it and the
respondents, and, thus, the latter had no cause of action against the former.
Consequently, there was no basis to grant the Complaint and to award
attorney's fees and the costs of suit in favor of the respondents. 23

On the other hand, respondents, in their comment, reiterates the

correctness of the RTC and the CA Decisions. They also brought to the attention
of this Court the fact that the individual defendants in the case, DPWH former
Secretaries Gregorio T. Vigilar and Jose P. de Jesus, and Undersecretary Teodoro
T. Encarnacion did not file an appeal to this Court. Both the RTC and the CA
Decisions adjudged these defendants jointly and solidarily liable with DPWH to
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 pay the amount awarded to the respondents. Respondents are effectively
claiming that the said judgments have become final and executory against
defendant public officials.

The Issues

We find that the crux of the Petition is simply whether the DPWH is liable
to pay the claims filed against them by the plaintiffs. Corollary to this main
issue, the following sub-issues beg for resolution:
Whether, in the absence of the legal requirements under PD
1445, a valid contract between the DPWH and the plaintiffs exists;

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to payment for accomplishing

100% of the work, attorney's fees and costs of suit;
cHECAS

Whether the Secretary and the Undersecretary of DWPH should

be held jointly and solidarily liable to plaintiffs.

The Court's Ruling

It should be borne in mind that a review under Rule 45 of the Rules of

Court is discretionary and must be granted only when there are special and
important reasons therefor. 24 We find that these reasons are not present in
this case.
As a general rule, the factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by
the appellate court, attain conclusiveness and are given utmost respect by this
Court. 25 DPWH never questioned the completion of the Sacobia-Bamban-Parua
river works. Neither did it question the authority of those who certified the
completion of the works by respondents. The trial court ruled that the works
were completed, as shown by the evidence presented before it. This finding
was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. There is, therefore, no reason for us to
view these factual findings.
With the findings of the trial and the appellate courts, there is no longer
any issue on whether the contractors completed the projects in accordance
with the specifications agreed upon. The regular course of a contract is that
after the complete rendering of services, the contractors are subsequently paid.
The DPWH, however, deviated from this course.
It should be noted that the completion of the works was recognized by the
DPWH, as shown by the certifications issued by its engineers and even by
municipal officials. Notwithstanding the said recognition, DPWH chose not to act
on the claims of respondents, and later denied liability for the payment of the
works on the ground of the invalidity of the contracts.
Petitioner DPWH primarily argues that the contracts with herein
respondents were void for not complying with Sections 85 and 86 of P.D. 1445,
or the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines, as amended by Executive
Order No. 292. These sections require an appropriation for the contracts and a
certification by the chief accountant of the agency or by the head of its
accounting unit as to the availability of funds. It should be noted that there was
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 an appropriation amounting to P400 million, which was increased to P700
million. The funding was for the rehabilitation of the areas devastated and
affected by Mt. Pinatubo, which included the Sacobia-Bamban-Parua River for
which some of the channeling, desilting and diking works were rendered by
herein respondents' construction companies.
It was, however, undisputed that there was no certification from the chief
accountant of DPWH regarding the said expenditure. In addition, the project
manager has a limited authority to approve contracts in an amount not
exceeding P1 million. 26 Notwithstanding these irregularities, it should be
pointed out that there is no novelty regarding the question of satisfying a claim
for construction contracts entered into by the government, where there was no
appropriation and where the contracts were considered void due to technical
reasons. It has been settled in several cases that payment for services done on
account of the government, but based on a void contract, cannot be avoided.
The Court first resolved such question in Royal Trust Construction v.
Commission on Audit. 27 In that case, the court issued a Resolution granting the
claim of Royal Trust Construction under a void contract. The unpublished
Resolution reads as follows: aEcHCD

NOV. 23, 1988

Gentlemen
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En
Banc dated NOV. 22, 1988.
G.R. No. 84202 (ROYAL TRUST CONSTRUCTION v. COMMISSION
ON AUDIT). — The petitioner undertook the widening and deepening of
the Betis River in Pampanga at the urgent request of the local officials
and with the knowledge and consent of the Ministry of Public Works but
without any written contract and the covering appropriation. The
purpose of the project was to prevent the flooding of the neighboring
areas and to irrigate the adjacent farmlands. On December 16, 1985,
the petitioner sought compensation in the sum of P1,299,736.00 "for
the completed portion of the P2.3 million Betis River project, which was
implemented or undertaken sometime in mid-May, 1984."
In a memorandum dated February 17, 1986, then Public Works
Minister Jesus Hipolito recommended immediate "payment of the works
already completed" from the cash disbursement ceiling of P300,000.00
for Betis River. On July 16, 1986, his successor, Minister Rogaciano M.
Mercado manifested that his office was interposing "no objection to the
proposal to use the P294,000.00 release for Betis River Control, Betis,
Mexico, Pampanga, for the partial payment of work already
accomplished for the channel improvement of said river from Sta.
2+200 to Sta. 5-100, subject, however, to existing budgetary
accounting and auditing rules and regulations."
On July 20, 1987, the Chairman of the Commission on Audit ruled
that "payment to the contractor for the work accomplished, starting
with the first partial payment in the amount of P268,051.14 only on the
basis of quantum meruit may be allowed, in keeping with the time-
honored principle that no one may be permitted to unjustly enrich
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 himself at the expense of another." However, in a subsequent
indorsement dated August 27, 1987, Chairman Domingo reversed
himself and held: TaHDAS

"However, this Commission is only too aware of its existing

policy on recovery from government contracts on the basis of
quantum meruit. Under COA Resolution No. 36-58, dated
November 15, 1986, this Commission has adhered to a policy of
barring such recovery where the project subject of the contract is
patently violative of the mandatory legal provisions relating to,
among others, the existence of the corresponding appropriation
covering the contract cost. The mere delay in the
accomplishment of the required certificate of availability of funds
(CAF) to support a contract presents an entirely different
situation considering that since the covering funds have in fact
been already appropriated and budgetarily allotted to the
implementing agency, the delayed execution of the CAF would
not alter such fact."
Even so, he added that "considering the sacrifices already made
by the appellant in accomplishing the project in question, which are
favorable circumstances attendant to the claim, payment on the basis
of quantum meruit may be given due course but only upon order of a
court."

The respondent is now faulted for grave abuse of discretion in

disallowing the petitioner's claim without an order from a court. The
Solicitor General, in support of the Commission on Audit, agrees that
the said payment cannot be made because it is barred for lack of the
required covering appropriation, let alone the corresponding written
contract.
We hold for the petitioner.

The work done by it was impliedly authorized and later expressly

acknowledged by the Ministry of Public Works, which has twice
recommended favorable action on the petitioner's request for
payment. Despite the admitted absence of a specific covering
appropriation as required under COA Resolution No. 36-58, the
petitioner may nevertheless be compensated for the services rendered
by it, concededly for the public benefit, from the general fund allotted
by law to the Betis River Project. Substantial compliance with the said
resolution, in view of the circumstances of this case, should suffice. The
Court also feels that the remedy suggested by the respondent, to
compensation claimed, would entail additional expense, inconvenience
and delay which in fairness should not be imposed on the petitioner.

Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice and equity, the

respondent Commission on Audit is DIRECTED to determine on a
quantum meruit basis the total compensation due to the petitioner for
the services rendered by it in the channel improvement of the Betis
River in Pampanga and to allow the payment thereof immediately upon
completion of the said determination." HSIADc

Very truly yours,

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 (sgd)
Daniel T. Martinez
Clerk of Court

The above case became the authority in granting claims of a contractor

against the government based on a void contract. This exercise of equity to
compensate contracts with the government was repeated in Eslao vs. COA. 28
In the said case, the respondent therein, Commission on Audit (COA), was
ordered to pay the company of petitioner for the services rendered by the latter
in constructing a building for a state university, notwithstanding the contract's
violations of the mandatory requirements of law, including the prior
appropriation of funds therefor. The Court, in resolving the case, cited the
unpublished Resolution in Royal Construction, wherein the Court allowed the
payment of the company's services sans the legal requirements of prior
appropriation.
Royal Trust Construction was again mentioned in Melchor v. COA, 29 which
was decided a few months after Eslao. In Melchor, it was found that the
contract was approved by an unauthorized person and, similar to the case at
bar, the required certification of the chief accountant was absent. The Court did
not deny or justify the invalidity of the contract. The Court, however, found that
the government unjustifiably denied what the latter owed to the contractors,
leaving them uncompensated after the government had benefited from the
already completed work.
I n EPG Construction Co., et al. v. Hon. Gregorio R. Vigilar, 30 the Court
again refused to stamp with legality DPWH's act of evading the payment of
contracts that had been completed, and from which the government had
already benefited. The Court held:
Although this Court agrees with respondent's postulation that the
"implied contracts", which covered the additional constructions, are
void, in view of violation of applicable laws, auditing rules and lack of
legal requirements, we nonetheless find the instant petition laden with
merit and uphold, in the interest of substantial justice, petitioners-
contractors' right to be compensated for the "additional constructions"
on the public works housing project, applying the principle of
quantum meruit. cSIHCA

The Court also held in the above case:

Notably, the peculiar circumstances present in the instant case
buttress petitioners' claim for compensation for the additional
constructions, despite the illegality and void nature of the "implied
contracts" forged between the DPWH and petitioners-contractors. On
this matter, it bears stressing that the illegality of the subject contracts
proceeds from an express declaration or prohibition by law, and not
from any intrinsic illegality. Stated differently, the subject contracts are
not illegal per se.

To emphasize, the contracts in the above cases, as in this case, were not
illegal per se. There was prior appropriation of funds for the project including
appropriation; and payment to the contractors, upon the subsequent
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 completion of the works, was warranted.
As to Public Works and Highways officials Gregorio R. Vigilar, Teodoro T.
Encarnacion and Jose P. de Jesus, their personal liability should not be
sustained. They were sued in their official capacity, and it would be unfair to
them to pay the contractors out of their own pockets. In Melchor, the Court
declared that it was unjust to hold the public official liable for the payment of a
construction that benefited the government.
We also depart from the CA and the RTC rulings awarding the respondents
attorney's fees and costs of suit. The Constitution provides that "no money shall
be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by
law." 31 Attorney's fees and costs of suit were not included in the appropriation
of expenditures for the Sacobia-Bamban-Parua project. In addition, we are not
disposed to say that there was bad faith on the part of the DPWH in not settling
its liability to the respondents for the works accomplished by the latter. The
DPWH relied on P.D. 1445, Section 87, which provides that contracts in
violation of Sections 85 and 86 thereof are void. The subject contracts
undoubtedly lacked the legal requirement of certification of the chief
accountant of DPWH. It was also clear that the project manager had no
authority to approve the contracts, since the amounts involved were beyond his
authority. 32 A strict application of the law, as the DPWH officials did, would
therefore give a reasonable basis for the denial of the claim and eliminate the
badge of bad faith on their part. The DPWH officials were apparently
apprehensive that they might end up being liable to the government if they had
wrongfully paid the contractors. This apprehension clearly showed in their letter
to the DOJ Secretary. 33 AcIaST

In conclusion, we uphold the CA in affirming the liability of the DPWH for

the works accomplished by herein contractors. We, however, delete the liability
of Gregorio Vigilar, Teodoro Encarnacion and Jose P. de Jesus, as well as other
monetary awards in favor of respondents, as these awards were not directly for
the subject accomplished works and were not funded by the department.

IN VIEW THEREOF, the assailed 26 June 2008 Decision of the Court of

Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Gregorio Vigilar, Teodoro
Encarnacion and Jose P. de Jesus are absolved from their solidary liability with
the government for the payment of the subject contracts. The payment is solely
on account of DPWH. Likewise, attorney's fees and costs of suit are hereby
DELETED.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Brion, Reyes and Perlas-Bernabe, * JJ., concur.

Footnotes
*Designated as additional member of the Second Division vice Associate Justice
Jose P. Perez per Special Order No. 1114 dated 3 October 2011.
1.Rollo , pp. 47-56; CA rollo, pp. 368-377; Decision penned by Associate Justice
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Agustin S. Dizon, with Associate Justices Regalado E. Maambong and Celia C.
Librea-Leagogo concurring.
2.Records, Vol. 1, pp. 4-5.

3.Id. at 9-15.
4.Id. at 15-22.
5.Id. at 22-24.
6.Id. at 24-26.

7.First Folder of Exhibits, p. 32.

8.Id. at 77.
9.Supra note 7.
10.Records, Vol. 1, pp. 1-34.
11.Records, Vol. II, pp. 264-273, penned by Judge Rustico V. Panganiban.

12.Id. at 270-271.
13.Id. The Advice of Allotment states: "The following allotments are made available
in support of their functions, projects, purpose and all other expenditures
authorized for the calendar year. The allotment for any given quarter shall
only become self executory at the beginning of that quarter. It is the primary
responsibility of the head of the department, bureau or agency concerned to
keep expenditures within the limits of the amount allotted." The purpose is
"to cover funding requirements for the implementation of necessary
infrastructure projects and other works under the Mt. Pinatubo Rehabilitation
Project." The appropriation was P400 million.
14.Id. at 284.

15.CA rollo, p. 56-91.

16.Id. at 72-75.
17.Id. at 345-346.

18.Id. at 346-347.
19.Id. at 347.

20.Id. at 349.

21.Rollo , pp. 8-44.

22.Id. at 20-21.

21.Id. at 21.
24.ROC, R45 §6.

25.See Spouses Pudadera v. Magallanes , G.R. No. 170073, 18 October 2010 citing
Uraca v. Court of Appeals , 344 Phil. 253, 267 (1997).
26.Fourth Folder of Exhibits, Department Order No. 135, Series of 1990, p. 1.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 27.Rollo (G.R. No. 84202), pp. 65-66.

28.G.R. No. 89745, 8 April 1991, 195 SCRA 730.

29.G.R. No. 95398, 16 August 1991, 200 SCRA 704.

30.G.R. No. 131544, 16 March 2001, 354 SCRA 566.

31.Constitution, Art. VI, §29 (1).

32.Fourth Folder of Exhibits, p. 1. DPWH Department Order No. 135, Series of 1990.

33.The letter dated 14 September 1993, written by Joel L. Altea, Asst. Secretary for
Comptrollership and Financial Management of the DPWH, was addressed to
the then DOJ Secretary Franklin M. Drilon, seeking an opinion on whether the
DPWH Secretary would be personally liable in case he signed and allowed
claims for work that turn out to have been mistakenly validated by the
Validation Committee and the COA.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com