Clearly, the trial court’s decision in this case was, in significant measure, judicial intervention is urgent; (g) where

ervention 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
the product of switched attributions as to who should enjoy certain rights and administrative remedies has been rendered moot; (j) where there is no other plain, speedy and adequate
what should be presumed under the law. This behavior on the part of the trial remedy; (k) where strong public interest is involved; and (l) in quo warranto proceedings.
court and the effect it had on the factual conclusions on the credibility of PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals.
Jessica Alfaro and on the presence of Hubert Webb in the Philippines at the The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
time of the commission of the crime cannot be upheld. The Solicitor General for petitioners.
Motion for Reconsideration denied. Tolentino, Logronio & Dayrit Law Offices for respondent.
Note.—The elements of double jeopardy are (1) the complaint or 774
information was sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction; (2) 774 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
the court had jurisdiction; (3) the accused had been arraigned and had Vigilar vs. Aquino
pleaded; and (4) the accused was convicted or acquitted, or the case was SERENO, J.:
dismissed without his express consent. (People vs. Tan, 625 SCRA 388 [2010] Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1under Rule 45 of the
——o0o—— Rules of Court, assailing the Decision2of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CV
G.R. No. 180388. January 18, 2011.* No. 82268, dated 25 September 2006.
GREGORIO R. VIGILAR, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF The antecedent facts are as follows:
PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS (DPWH), DPWH On 19 June 1992, petitioner Angelito M. Twaño, then Officer-in-Charge
UNDERSECRETARIES TEODORO E. ENCARNACION AND EDMUNDO E. (OIC)-District Engineer of the Department of Public Works and Highways
ENCARNACION AND EDMUNDO V. MIR, DPWH ASSISTANT (DPWH) 2nd Engineering District of Pampanga sent an Invitation to Bid to
SECRETARY JOEL L. ALTEA, DPWH REGIONAL DIRECTOR VICENTE respondent Arnulfo D. Aquino, the owner of A.D. Aquino Construction and
B. LOPEZ, DPWH DISTRICT ENGINEER ANGELITO M. TWAÑO, FELIX Supplies. The bidding was for the construction of a dike by bulldozing a part
A. DESIERTO OF THE TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP VALIDATION of the Porac River at Barangay Ascomo-Pulungmasle, Guagua, Pampanga.
AND AUDITING TEAM, Subsequently, on 7 July 1992, the project was awarded to respondent, and
_______________ a “Contract of Agreement” was thereafter executed between him and
concerned petitioners for the amount of PhP1,873,790.69, to cover the project
* EN BANC.
773
cost.
VOL. 639, JANUARY 18, 2011 773 By 9 July 1992, the project was duly completed by respondent, who was
Vigilar vs. Aquino then issued a Certificate of Project Completion dated 16 July 1992. The
AND LEONARDO ALVARO, ROMEO N. SUPAN, VICTORINO C. SANTOS certificate was signed by Romeo M. Yumul, the Project Engineer; as well as
OF THE DPWH PAMPANGA 2ND ENGINEERING DISTRICT, petitioner Romeo N. Supan, Chief of the Construction Section, and by
petitioners, vs.ARNULFO D. AQUINO, respondent. petitioner Twaño.
Administrative Law; Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies; Doctrine of Primary Respondent Aquino, however, claimed that PhP1,262,696.20 was still due
Administrative Jurisdiction; The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and the doctrine of him, but petitioners refused to pay the amount. He thus filed a Complaint3 for
primary jurisdiction are not ironclad rules.—It has been established that the doctrine of exhaustion of the collection of sum of money with damages before the Regional Trial Court
administrative remedies and the doctrine of primary jurisdiction are not ironclad rules. In Republic of
the Philippines v. Lacap, 517 SCRA 255 (2007), this Court enumerated the numerous exceptions to of Guagua,
these rules, namely: (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 1 Rollo at 10-32.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino, with Associate Justices Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos and
amount involved is relatively so small as to make the rule impractical and oppressive; (e) where the
Arcangelita Romilla-Lontok concurring, Rollo at 33-48.
question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by the courts of justice; (f) where 3 Rollo at 51-55.
775 Dissatisfied with the Decision of the Court of Appeals, petitioners are now
VOL. 639, JANUARY 18, 2011 775 before this Court, seeking a reversal of the appellate court’s Decision and a
Vigilar vs. Aquino dismissal of the Complaint in Civil Case No. G-3137. The Petition raises the
Pampanga. The complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. 3137. following issues:
Petitioners, for their part, set up the defense4 that the Complaint was a 1. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
suit against the state; that respondent failed to exhaust administrative HOLDING THAT THE DOCTRINE OF NON-SUABILITY OF THE
remedies; and that the “Contract of Agreement” covering the project was void STATE HAS NO APPLICATION IN THIS CASE.
for violating Presidential Decree No. 1445, absent the proper appropriation 2. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT
and the Certificate of Availability of Funds.5 DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE OF RESPONDENT
On 28 November 2003, the lower court ruled in favor of respondent, to wit: TO EXHAUST ALL ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, defendant Department of Public 3. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
Works and Highways is hereby ordered to pay the plaintiff Arnulfo D. Aquino ORDERING THE COA TO ALLOW PAYMENT TO RESPONDENT ON
the following: A QUANTUM MERUIT BASIS DESPITE THE LATTER’S FAILURE
1. PhP1,873,790.69, Philippine Currency, representing actual amount for TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF PRESIDENTIAL
the completion of the project done by the plaintiff; DECREE NO. 1445.
2. PhP50,000.00 as attorney’s fee and _______________

3. Cost of this suit. 7 G.R. Nos. 151373-74, November 17, 2005, 475 SCRA 218.
SO ORDERED.”6 8 Rollo at 47.
It is to be noted that respondent was only asking for PhP1,262,696.20; the 777
award in paragraph 1 above, however, conforms to the entire contract VOL. 639, JANUARY 18, 2011 777
amount. Vigilar vs. Aquino
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the Decision of the After a judicious review of the case, the Court finds the Petition to be
lower court and disposed as follows: without merit.
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is GRANTED. The “CONTRACT AGREEMENT” Firstly, petitioners claim that the Complaint filed by respondent before the
entered into between the plaintiff-appellee’s construction company, which he represented, and the Regional Trial Court was done without exhausting administrative remedies.
government, through the Department of Public Works and
_______________ Petitioners aver that respondent should have first filed a claim before the
Commission on Audit (COA) before going to the courts. However, it has been
4 Petitioners’ Answer, Rollo at 56-59.
5 Sections 85-87, Ordaining and Instituting a Government Auditing Code of the Philippines (1978). established that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and
6 Rollo at 60-64.
776
the doctrine of primary jurisdiction are not ironclad rules. In Republic of the
776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Philippines v. Lacap,9 this Court enumerated the numerous exceptions to
Vigilar vs. Aquino these rules, namely: (a) where there is estoppel on the part of the party
Highway (DPWH)—Pampanga 2nd Engineering District, is declared null and void ab initio. invoking the doctrine; (b) where the challenged administrative act is patently
The assailed decision of the court a quo is hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction; (c) where there is unreasonable
In line with the pronouncement in Department of Health vs. C.V. Canchela & Associates,
Architects, the Commission on Audit (COA) is hereby ordered to determine and ascertain with
7
delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the complainant; (d)
dispatch, on a quantum meruit basis, the total obligation due to the plaintiff-appellee for his where the amount involved is relatively so small as to make the rule
undertaking in implementing the subject contract of public works, and to allow payment thereof, subject impractical and oppressive; (e) where the question involved is purely legal
to COA Rules and Regulations, upon the completion of the said determination.
No pronouncement as to costs.
and will ultimately have to be decided by the courts of justice; (f) where
SO ORDERED.” 8 judicial intervention is urgent; (g) where the application of the doctrine may
cause great and irreparable damage; (h) where the controverted acts violate 10 Supreme Court Resolution En Banc, G.R. No. 84202, November 22, 1988, cited in Eslao v. Commission on
Audit, 195 SCRA 730 (1991).
due process; (i) where the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies 11 G.R. No. 89745, April 8, 1991, 195 SCRA 730.
has been rendered moot; (j) where there is no other plain, speedy and 12 G.R. No. 95938, August 16, 1991, 200 SCRA 705.
13 G.R. 131544, March 16, 2001, 354 SCRA 566.
adequate remedy; (k) where strong public interest is involved; and (l) in quo 14 Supra at note 7.
warranto proceedings. In the present case, conditions (c) and (e) are present. 779
The government project contracted out to respondent was completed VOL. 639, JANUARY 18, 2011 779
almost two decades ago. To delay the proceedings by remanding the case to Vigilar vs. Aquino
to comply with the relevant provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1445 and
the relevant government office or agency will definitely prejudice respondent.
the Revised Administrative Code of 1987. Nevertheless, “(t)he illegality of the
More importantly, the issues in the present case involve the validity and the
subject Agreements proceeds, it bears emphasis, from an express declaration
enforceability of the “Contract of Agreement” entered into by the parties.
These are questions purely of law and clearly or prohibition by law, not from any intrinsic illegality. As such, the
_______________ Agreements are not illegal per se, and the party claiming thereunder may
9 G.R. No. 158253, March 2, 2007, 517 SCRA 255.
recover what had been paid or delivered.”15
778 The government project involved in this case, the construction of a dike,
778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED was completed way back on 9 July 1992. For almost two decades, the public
Vigilar vs. Aquino and the government benefitted from the work done by respondent. Thus, the
beyond the expertise of the Commission on Audit or the DPWH. In Lacap, Court of Appeals was correct in applying Eslao to the present
this Court said: case. In Eslao, this Court stated:
“... It does not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the “...the Court finds that the contractor should be duly compensated for services rendered, which were for
parties. There is a question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain the benefit of the general public. To deny the payment to the contractor of the two buildings
state of facts, and not as to the truth or the falsehood of alleged facts. Said question at best could be which are almost fully completed and presently occupied by the university would be to
resolved only tentatively by the administrative authorities. The final decision on the matter rests allow the government to unjustly enrich itself at the expense of another. Justice and
not with them but with the courts of justice. Exhaustion of administrative remedies does not equity demand compensation on the basis of quantum meruit.” (Emphasis supplied.)
apply, because nothing of an administrative nature is to be or can be done. The issue does Neither can petitioners escape the obligation to compensate respondent for
not require technical knowledge and experience but one that would involve the services rendered and work done by invoking the state’s immunity from suit.
interpretation and application of law.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Secondly, in ordering the payment of the obligation due respondent on This Court has long established in Ministerio v. CFI of Cebu,16and recently
a quantum meruit basis, the Court of Appeals correctly relied on Royal Trust reiterated in Heirs of Pidacan v. ATO,17 thatthe doctrine of governmental
Corporation v. COA,10 Eslao v. COA,11 Melchor v. COA,12 EPG Construction immunity from suit cannot serve as an instrument for perpetrating an
Company v. Vigilar,13 and Department of Health v. C.V. Canchela & _______________ injustice to a citizen. As this Court enunciated in EPG Construction:18
Associates, Architects.14 All these cases involved government projects
undertaken in violation of the relevant laws, rules and regulations covering 15 Department of Health v. C.V. Canchela Associates, Architects, G.R. Nos. 151373-74, November 17, 2005, 475
SCRA 218.
public bidding, budget appropriations, and release of funds for the projects. 16 G.R. No. L-31635, August 31, 1971, 40 SCRA 464.
Consistently in these cases, this Court has held that the contracts were void 17 G.R. No. 186192, August 25, 2010, 629 SCRA 451.
18 G.R. No. 131544, March 16, 2001, 354 SCRA 566.
for failing to meet the requirements mandated by law; public interest and 780
equity, however, dictate that the contractor should be compensated for 780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
services rendered and work done. Vigilar vs. Aquino
Specifically, C.V. Canchela & Associates is similar to the case at bar, in “To our mind, it would be the apex of injustice and highly inequitable to defeat
that the contracts involved in both cases failed respondent’s right to be duly compensated for actual work performed and services
_______________ rendered, where both the government and the public have for years received and accepted
benefits from the project and reaped the fruits of respondent’s honest toil and labor.
 ... ... ...
Under these circumstances, respondent may not validly invoke the Royal Prerogative of
Dishonesty and conveniently hide under the State’s cloak of invincibility against suit, considering that
this principle yields to certain settled exceptions. True enough, the rule, in any case, is not
absolute for it does not say that the state may not be sued under any circumstance.
... ... ...
Although the Amigable and Ministerio cases generously tackled the issue of the State’s immunity
from suit vis a vis the payment of just compensation for expropriated property, this Court nonetheless
finds the doctrine enunciated in the aforementioned cases applicable to the instant
controversy, considering that the ends of justice would be subverted if we were to uphold, in
this particular instance, the State’s immunity from suit.
To be sure, this Court—as the staunch guardian of the citizens’ rights and welfare—
cannot sanction an injustice so patent on its face, and allow itself to be an instrument in the
perpetration thereof. Justice and equity sternly demand that the State’s cloak of
invincibility against suit be shred in this particular instance, and that petitioners-
contractors be duly compensated—on the basis of quantum meruit—for construction done
on the public works housing project.” (Emphasis supplied.)
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition is DENIED for lack of
merit. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 82268
dated 25 September 2006 is AFFIRMED.