Mison v.

COA, 187 SCRA 445

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)