Mison vs. COA

 Mison v. 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 ith C!" for the payment of the vessel. But this claim as denied by Mr. #o$elio %spiritu, Mana$er &echnical Services !ffice'&S!( of C!" claimin$ to be actin$ )'b(y authority of the "ctin$ Chairman,) &he decision as eventually ratified by Chairman *omin$o actin$ +for the commission. Claimants no -uestion the authority of the &S! Mana$er and C!" Chair, alle$in$ that the decision as void because the matter could validly be acted upon only by )the Commission on "udit duly constituted, by the appointment and -ualification of its Chairman and to Commissioners,) )as specifically provided by Section , "rticle /001* of the '2345( Constitution. "re "re the claimants contention correct6 ". 7%S. 7%S. &he decis decision ion is void void ab initio initio.. &he &S! mana$e mana$err had no poer hateve hateverr to render render and  promul$ate a decision of or for the Commission. Commission. 0ndeed, even the Chairman, alone, had not that poer. poer. ." It was the Commission ( )composed of a Chairman and to Commissioners( , as a collegial body, had the jurisdiction 8urther, the ratification as also inconse-uential. #atification cannot validate an act void ab initio because initio  because it as done absolutely ithout authority. Moreover, even concedin$ the contrary, no  proper ratification or validation could have been effected by the "ctin$ Chairman since he as not the Commission, and he himself had no poer to decide any case brou$ht before the Commission, that  poer, to repeat, bein$ lod$ed only in the Commission itself, as a colle$ial body. (Mison v. COA, 187  SCRA 445)