amado

SECOND DIVISION

EURO-MED LABORATORIES,                        G.R. No. 148106

PHIL., INC., represented by

LEONARDO H. TORIBIO,                              

                                Petitioner,

                                                                Present:

                                                                PUNO, J., Chairperson,

                                      SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,

        -  v e r s u s  -                                  CORONA,

                                                                AZCUNA and

                                                                GARCIA, JJ.

THE PROVINCE OF BATANGAS,

represented by its Governor,

HON. HERMILANDO I. MANDANAS,

                                Respondent.            Promulgated:

                                                                July 17, 2006

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

FACTS:

            On several occasions, particularly from the period of 19 August 1992 to 11 August 1998, defendant [respondent here], thru its various authorized representatives of the government hospitals identified and listed below, purchased various Intravenous Fluids (IVF) products from the plaintiff [petitioner here], with an unpaid balance of Four Hundred Eighty Seven Thousand Six Hundred Sixty-Two Pesos and Eighty Centavos (P487,662.80), as of 28 February 1998, broken down as follows: x xxx which purchases were evidenced by invoices duly received and signed by defendant’s authorized representatives, upon delivery of the merchandise listed in said invoices.Under the terms and conditions of the aforesaid invoices, defendant agreed and covenanted to pay plaintiff, without need of demand, its obligations in the above-enumerated invoices. Respondent alleged that some payments it had already made were not reflected in the computation set forth in the complaint and that it was continuously exerting genuine and earnest efforts “to find out the true and actual amount owed.”  Pre-trial and trial followed.

            At the conclusion of petitioner’s presentation of evidence, respondent filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the primary jurisdiction over petitioner’s money claim was lodged with the Commission on Audit (COA). Respondent pointed out that petitioner’s claim, arising as it did from a series of procurement transactions with the province, was governed by the Local Government Code provisions and COA rules and regulations on supply and property management in local governments. Respondent argued that the case called for a determination of whether these provisions and rules were complied with, and that was within the exclusive domain of COA to make.Finding the motion to be well-taken, the RTC issued on March 7, 2001 an order dismissing petitioner’s complaint without prejudice to the filing of the proper money claim with the COA.  In a subsequent order dated May 16, 2001,  theRTC denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Hence, this petition.

ISSUES:

            Witheror not  RTC or COA has the jurisdiction of the said case.

RULING:

          We rule that it is the COA which does. Therefore, we deny the petition. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction holds that if a case is such that its determination requires the expertise, specialized training and knowledge of an administrative body, relief must first be obtained in an administrative proceeding before resort to the courts is had even if the matter may well be within their proper jurisdiction.        This case is one over which the doctrine of primary jurisdiction clearly held sway for although petitioner’s collection suit for P487,662.80 was within the jurisdiction of the RTC the circumstances surrounding petitioner’s claim brought it clearly within the ambit of the COA’s jurisdiction.

First, petitioner was seeking the enforcement of a claim for a certain amount of money against a local government unit.  This brought the case within the COA’s domain to pass upon money claims against the government or any subdivision thereof under Section 26 of the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines: The authority and powers of the Commission [on Audit] shall extend to and comprehend all matters relating to the examination, audit, and settlement of all debts and claims of any sort due from or owing to the Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies, and instrumentalities.

The scope of the COA’s authority to take cognizance of claims is circumscribed, however, by an unbroken line of cases holding statutes of similar import to mean only liquidated claims, or those determined or readily determinable from vouchers, invoices, and such other papers within reach of accounting officers.  Petitioner’s claim was for a fixed amount and although respondent took issue with the accuracy of petitioner’s summation of its accountabilities, the amount thereof was readily determinable from the receipts, invoices and other documents. Thus, the claim was well within the COA’s jurisdiction under the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines.

        Second, petitioner’s money claim was founded on a series of purchases for the medical supplies of respondent’s public hospitals.  Both parties agreed that these transactions were governed by the Local Government Code provisions on supply and property management and their implementing rules and regulations promulgated by the COA pursuant to Section 383 of said Code. Petitioner’s claim therefore involved compliance with applicable auditing laws and rules on procurement.  Such matters are not within the usual area of knowledge, experience and expertise of most judges but within the special competence of COA auditors and accountants.  Thus, it was but proper, out of fidelity to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, for the RTC to dismiss petitioner’s complaint.

                 WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.  The March 7, and May 16, 2001 orders of the Regional Trial Court of Batangas City are hereby AFFIRMED.

                Costs against petitioner.

RAMON D. AMADO

LLB 3^RD YEAR STUDENT