THE Commission on Audit has denied with finality the petition of a former state university president from Central Visayas for reimbursement of P922,400 legal expenses incurred in engaging the services of private counsel.
In an en banc resolution, the COA Commission Proper said the letter of former Central Philippine State University (CPSU, formerly Negros State College of Agriculture) president Marcelino Dechavez amounted to a second appeal, which is not allowed by the rules.
“The CP did not take action on the letter dated February 10, 2023 of Dr. Dechavez as it constitutes a second Motion for Reconsideration which is prohibited under the Rules of Procedure of the COA, aside from being bereft of merit,” the commission declared.
Records showed it had previously denied the university official’s claim for reimbursement of legal expenses on April 10, 2015 and the original motion for reconsideration on December 22, 2021.
In both instances, the COA noted that the claim was backed only by unnumbered acknowledgment receipts which auditors pointed out were insufficient to prove the actual delivery of payment to the private lawyers.
They pointed out that such acknowledgment receipts can be “easily fabricated” and hence are not reliable.
On another ground, the COA underscored the failure of Dechavez to secure its prior approval before hiring the lawyers for a civil case even if the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) gave its assent.
In relation to Dechavez’s legal representation in criminal and administrative cases, only the unnumbered acknowledgment was submitted for the reimbursement request without the contracts for legal services, the certificate of availability of funds from the university, and other required documents.
The COA rejected his explanation that he was not informed that the Commission’s concurrence was required as it pointed out that the OSG even cited this precondition in granting his request for deputation of the private lawyer.
Moreover, it cited the ruling of the Supreme Court in the 2013 case of Office of the Ombudsman vs. Dechavez which affirmed his dismissal from service and held that he should bear the costs of litigation.
The COA noted that Dechavez did not inform it about the existence of the said SC ruling when he filed his claim for reimbursement.
