Tickler
Title G.R. No. 180388 January 18, 2011
GREGORIO R. VIGILAR, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND
HIGHWAYS (DPWH), DPWH UNDERSECRETARIES TEODORO E. ENCARNACION AND
EDMUNDO E. ENCARNACION AND EDMUNDO V. MIR, DPWH ASSISTANT SECRETARY JOEL L.
ALTEA, DPWH REGIONAL DIRECTOR VICENTE B. LOPEZ, DPWH DISTRICT ENGINEER
ANGELITO M. TWAÑO, FELIX A. DESIERTO OF THE TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP
VALIDATION AND AUDITING TEAM, AND LEONARDO ALVARO, ROMEO N. SUPAN,
VICTORINO C. SANTOS OF THE DPWH PAMPANGA 2ND ENGINEERING DISTRICT, Petitioners,
vs. ARNULFO D. AQUINO, Respondent.
SERENO, J.:
Doctrine “Please see highlighted with green”
FACTS In 1992, petitioner Twaño, OIC of DPWH, sent an Invitation to Bid to respondent Aquino, owner of A.D.
Aquino Construction and Supplies, for the construction of a dike by bulldozing a part of the Porac River
at Guagua, Pampanga. The project was subsequently awarded to respondent and a "Contract of
Agreement" for the amount of Php 1.8M was thereafter executed between him and concerned
petitioners.
When the project was completed, respondent was then issued a Certificate of Project Completion
signed by petitioners Yumul, Supan and Twaño. However, respondent was claiming that Php 1.2M
was still due him. When petitioners failed to pay, he filed a complaint for the collection of sum of
money.
Petitioners, on their part, set up the defense that the Complaint was a suit against the state; that
respondent failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The "Contract of Agreement" covering the
project was also allegedly void for violating PD 1445, absent the proper appropriation and the
Certificate of Availability of Funds.
RTC Ruled in favor of respondent
WHEREFORE, premises considered, defendant Department of Public Works and Highways is hereby
ordered to pay the plaintiff Arnulfo D. Aquino the following:
1. PhP1,873,790.69, Philippine Currency, representing actual amount for the completion of the project
done by the plaintiff;
2. PhP50,000.00 as attorney’s fee and
3. Cost of this suit.
SO ORDERED.
NOTE:
It is to be noted that respondent was only asking for Php 1.2M; the award in paragraph 1 above,
however, conforms to the entire contract amount.
CA Reversed and set aside the RTC Decision and disposed as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is GRANTED. The "CONTRACT AGREEMENT"
entered into between the plaintiff-appellee’s construction company, which he represented, and the
government, through the Department of Public Works and Highway (DPWH) – Pampanga 2nd
Engineering District, is declared null and void ab initio.
The assailed decision of the court a quo is hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE.
COA is hereby ordered to determine and ascertain with dispatch, on a quantum meruit basis, the total
obligation due to the plaintiff-appellee for his undertaking in implementing the subject contract of public
works, and to allow payment thereof, subject to COA Rules and Regulations, upon the completion of
the said determination.
Petitioner’s 1. Administrative remedies were not exhausted
Contention - Petitioners aver that respondent should have first filed a claim before COA before going to
the courts.
ISSUE WON administrative remedies should have been exhausted by respondent
WON the CA erred in ordering payment
WON the non-suability of the State may be invoked
SC After a judicious review of the case, the Court finds the Petition to be without merit.
1. NO. It has been established that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and the
doctrine of primary jurisdiction are not ironclad rules. Numerous exceptions to these rules are: (a)
where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine; (b) where the challenged
administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction; (c) where there is unreasonable
delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the complainant; (d) where the amount involved
is relatively so small as to make the rule impractical and oppressive; (e) where the question involved is
purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by the courts of justice; (f) where judicial intervention
is urgent; (g) where the application of the doctrine may cause great and irreparable damage; (h) where
the controverted acts violate due process; (i) where the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative
remedies has been rendered moot; (j) where there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy; (k)
where strong public interest is involved; and (l) in quo warranto proceedings. In the present case,
conditions (c) and (e) are present.
The government project contracted out to respondent was completed almost two decades ago. To
delay the proceedings by remanding the case to the relevant government office or agency will
definitely prejudice respondent. More importantly, the issues in the present case involve the validity
and the enforceability of the "Contract of Agreement" entered into by the parties. These are questions
purely of law and clearly beyond the expertise of the COA or the DPWH.
2. In ordering the payment of the obligation due respondent on a quantum meruit basis, the Court of
Appeals correctly relied on previous jurisprudence. This Court has consistently held that the contracts
were void for failing to meet the requirements mandated by law; public interest and equity, however,
dictate that the contractor should be compensated for services rendered and work done.
The government project involved in this case, the construction of a dike, was completed way back on 9
July 1992. For almost two decades, the public and the government benefitted from the work done by
respondent.
3. NO. Neither can petitioners escape the obligation to compensate respondent for services rendered
and work done by invoking the state’s immunity from suit. This Court has long established in Ministerio
v. CFI of Cebu,16 and recently reiterated in Heirs of Pidacan v. ATO, that the doctrine of governmental
immunity from suit cannot serve as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice to a citizen.
Other Matters N/A
