12/19/2016

G.R.No.213525

TodayisMonday,December19,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
G.R.No.213525January27,2015
FORTUNELIFEINSURANCECOMPANY,INC.,Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSIONONAUDIT(COA)PROPERCOAREGIONALOFFICENO.VIWESTERNVISAYASAUDIT
GROUPLGSB,PROVINCEOFANTIQUEANDPROVINCIALGOVERNMENTOFANTIQUE,Respondents.
RESOLUTION
BERSAMIN,J.:
Petitioner Fortune Life Insurance Company, Inc. seeks the Reconsideration1 of the resolution promulgated on
August19,2014,2wherebytheCourtdismisseditspetitionforcertiorariunderRule64inrelationtoRule65ofthe
Rules of Courtdue to its noncompliance with the provisions of Rule 64, particularly for:(a) the late filing of the
petition(b)thenonsubmissionoftheproofofserviceandverifieddeclarationand(c)thefailuretoshowgrave
abuseofdiscretiononthepartoftherespondents.3
Antecedents
RespondentProvincialGovernmentofAntique(LGU)andthepetitionerexecutedamemorandumofagreement
concerning the life insurance coverage of qualified barangaysecretaries, treasurers and tanod, the former
obligatingP4,393,593.60forthepremiumpayment,andsubsequentlysubmittingthecorrespondingdisbursement
voucher to COA Antique for preaudit.4 The latter office disallowed the payment for lack of legal basis under
RepublicActNo.7160(LocalGovernmentCode).RespondentLGUappealedbutitsappealwasdenied.
Consequently, the petitioner filed its petition for money claim in the COA.5 On November 15, 2012, the COA
issueditsdecisiondenyingthepetition,6holdingthatunderSection447andSection458oftheLocalGovernment
Code only municipal or city governments are expressly vested with the power to secure group insurance
coverageforbarangayworkersandnotingtheLGUsfailuretocomplywiththerequirementofpublicationunder
Section21ofRepublicActNo.9184(GovernmentProcurementReformAct).
The petitioner received a copy of the COA decision on December 14, 2012,7 and filed its motion for
reconsiderationonJanuary14,2013.8 However, the COA denied the motion,9 the denial being received by the
petitioneronJuly14,2014.10
Hence, the petitioner filed the petition for certiorari on August 12, 2014, but the petition for certiorari was
dismissed as earlier stated through the resolution promulgated on August 19,2014 for (a) the late filing of the
petition(b)thenonsubmissionoftheproofofserviceandverifieddeclarationand(c)thefailuretoshowgrave
abuseofdiscretiononthepartoftherespondents.
Issues
Initsmotionforreconsideration,thepetitionersubmitsthatitfiledthepetitionforcertiorariwithinthereglementary
period following the fresh period rule enunciated in Neypes v. Court of Appeals11 and that the petition for
certiorari included an affidavit of service in compliance with Section 3, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court. It admits
havingoverlookedthesubmissionofaverifieddeclarationandpraysthatthedeclarationattachedtothemotion
for reconsideration be admitted by virtue of its substantial compliance with the Efficient Use of Paper Rule12 by
previouslysubmittingacompactdisc(CD)containingthepetitionforcertiorarianditsannexes.Itdisagreeswith
the Court, insisting that it showed and proved grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COA in issuing the
assaileddecision.
Ruling
Wedenythemotionforreconsiderationforbeingwithoutmerit.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_213525_2015.html

1/5

12/19/2016

G.R.No.213525

I
Petitionerdidnotcomplywith
theruleonproofofservice
The petitioner claims that the affidavit of service attached to the petition for certiorari complied with the
requirementonproofofservice.
The claim is unwarranted. The petitioner obviously ignores that Section 13, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court
concerns two types of proof of service, namely: the affidavit and the registry receipt, viz: Section 13. Proof of
Service. x x x. If service is made by registered mail, proof shall be made by such affidavit and the registry
receipt issued by the mailing office. The registry return card shall be filed immediately upon its receipt by the
sender,orinlieuthereoftheunclaimedlettertogetherwiththecertifiedorsworncopyofthenoticegivenbythe
postmaster to the addressee. Section 13 thus requires that if the service is done by registered mail, proof of
serviceshallconsistoftheaffidavitofthepersoneffectingthemailingandtheregistryreceipt,bothofwhichmust
beappendedtothepaperbeingserved.Acompliancewiththeruleismandatory,suchthat
thereisnoproofofserviceifeitherorbotharenotsubmitted.13
Here,thepetitionforcertiorarionlycarriedtheaffidavitofserviceexecutedbyoneMarcelinoT.Pascua,Jr.,who
declaredthathehadservedcopiesofthepetitionbyregisteredmail"underRegistryReceiptNos.70449,70453,
70458,70498and70524attachedtotheappropriatespacesfoundonpages6465ofthepetition."14Thepetition
only bore, however, the cut printouts of what appeared to be the registry receipt numbers of the registered
matters, not the registry receipts themselves. The rule requires to be appended the registry receipts, nottheir
reproductions.Hence,thecutprintoutsdidnotsubstantiallycomplywiththerule.Thiswasthereasonwhythe
CourtheldintheresolutionofAugust19,2014thatthepetitionerdidnotcomplywiththerequirementofproofof
service.15
II
FreshPeriodRuleunderNeypes
didnotapplytothepetitionforcertiorari
underRule64oftheRulesofCourt
ThepetitionerpositsthatthefreshperiodruleappliesbecauseitsRule64petitionisakintoapetitionforreview
brought under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court hence, conformably with the fresh period rule, the period to file a
Rule64petitionshouldalsobereckonedfromthereceiptoftheorderdenyingthemotionforreconsiderationor
themotionfornewtrial.16
Thepetitionerspositioncannotbesustained.
ThereisnoparitybetweenthepetitionforreviewunderRule42andthepetitionforcertiorariunderRule64.
Astothenatureoftheprocedures,Rule42governsanappealfromthejudgmentorfinalorderrenderedbythe
RegionalTrialCourtintheexerciseofitsappellatejurisdiction.Suchappealisonaquestionoffact,oroflaw,or
ofmixedquestionoffactandlaw,andisgivenduecourseonlyuponaprimafacieshowingthattheRegionalTrial
Courtcommittedanerroroffactorlawwarrantingthereversalormodificationofthechallengedjudgmentorfinal
order.17Incontrast,thepetitionforcertiorariunderRule64issimilartothepetitionforcertiorariunderRule65,
andassailsajudgmentorfinalorderoftheCommissiononElections(COMELEC),ortheCommissiononAudit
(COA).Thepetitionisnotdesignedtocorrectonlyerrorsofjurisdiction,noterrorsofjudgment.18Questionsoffact
cannotberaisedexcepttodeterminewhethertheCOMELECortheCOAwereguiltyofgraveabuseofdiscretion
amountingtolackorexcessofjurisdiction.
ThereglementaryperiodsunderRule42andRule64aredifferent.Intheformer,theaggrievedpartyisallowed
15 days to file the petition for review from receipt of the assailed decision or final order, or from receipt of the
denialofamotionfornewtrialorreconsideration.19Inthelatter,thepetitionisfiledwithin30daysfromnoticeof
the judgment or final order or resolution sought to be reviewed. The filing of a motion for new trial or
reconsideration,ifallowedundertheproceduralrulesoftheCommissionconcerned,interruptstheperiodhence,
shouldthemotionbedenied,theaggrievedpartymayfilethepetitionwithintheremainingperiod,whichshallnot
belessthanfivedaysinanyevent,reckonedfromthenoticeofdenial.20
The petitioner filed its motion for reconsideration on January 14, 2013, which was 31 days after receiving the
assailed decision of the COA on December 14, 2012.21 Pursuant to Section 3 of Rule 64, it had only five days
from receipt of the denial of its motion for reconsideration to file the petition. Considering that it received the
noticeofthedenialonJuly14,2014,ithadonlyuntilJuly19,2014tofilethepetition.However,itfiledthepetition
onAugust13,2014,whichwas25daystoolate.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_213525_2015.html

2/5

12/19/2016

G.R.No.213525
22

WeruledinPatesv.CommissiononElections thatthebelatedfilingofthepetitionforcertiorariunderRule64on
thebeliefthatthefreshperiodruleshouldapplywasfataltotherecourse.Assuch,thepetitionerhereinshould
suffer the same fate for having wrongly assumed that the fresh period rule under Neypes23 applied. Rules of
proceduremayberelaxedonlytorelievealitigantofaninjusticethatisnotcommensuratewiththedegreeofhis
thoughtlessness in not complying with the prescribed procedure.24 Absent this reason for liberality, the petition
cannotbeallowedtoprosper.
III
Petitionforcertiorarifurtherlackedmerit
Thepetitionforcertiorariisalsodismissibleforitslackofmerit.
The petitioner insists on having fully shown that the COA committed grave abuse of discretion, to wit: (1) the
challengeddecisionwasrenderedbyadividedCOAproper(2)theCOAtookalmostayearbeforepromulgating
its decision, and more thana year in resolving the motion for reconsideration, in contravention of the express
mandateoftheConstitution(3)theresolutiondenyingthemotionforreconsiderationwasmadeupofonlytwo
sentences(4)thematterinvolvedanovelissuethatcalledforaninterpretationofthepertinentprovisionsofthe
Local Government Code and (5) in issuing the resolution, COA Commissioners Grace PulidoTan and Heidi L.
Mendoza made it appear that they knew the Local Government Code better than former Senator Aquilino
Pimentelwhoofferedanopiniononthematter.25
Graveabuseofdiscretionimpliessuchcapriciousandwhimsicalexerciseofjudgmentastobeequivalenttolack
or excess of jurisdiction in other words, power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of
passion,prejudice,orpersonalhostilityandsuchexerciseissopatentorsogrossastoamounttoanevasionof
apositivedutyortoavirtualrefusaleithertoperformthedutyenjoinedortoactatallincontemplationoflaw.26
A close look indicates that the petition for certioraridid not sufficiently disclose how the COA committed grave
abuseofitsdiscretion.Forsure,thebasescitedbythepetitionerdidnotapproximategraveabuseofdiscretion.
Tostartwith,thesupposeddelaystakenbytheCOAindecidingtheappealwereneitherarbitrarynorwhimsical
on its part. Secondly, the mere terseness of the denial of the motion for reconsideration was not a factor in
demonstrating an abuse of discretion. And, lastly, the fact that Senator Pimentel, even if he had been the main
proponentoftheLocalGovernmentCodeintheLegislature,expressedanopinionontheissuesdifferentfromthe
COACommissionersowndidnotmatter,foritwasthelattersadjudicationthathadanyvalueanddecisiveness
ontheissuesbyvirtueoftheirbeingtheConstitutionallyofficialsentrustedwiththeauthorityforthatpurpose.
ItisequallyrelevanttonotethattheCOAdeniedthemoneyclaimofthepetitionerforthefurtherreasonoflackof
sufficientpublicationasrequiredbytheGovernmentProcurementAct.Inthatlight,theCOAactedwellwithinits
authorityindenyingthepetitionersclaim.
IV
Petitioneranditscounsel
exhibitedharshnessanddisrespect
towardstheCourtanditsMembers
ThepetitionercontendsthattheCourterredinappreciatingthepetitionersnoncompliancewiththerequirement
of the proof of service, alleging that even "a perfunctory scrutiny" of the petition for certiorari and its annexes
couldhaveeasilyshownthatithadattachedanaffidavitofservicetothepetition.Itgoesontomakethefollowing
statements,viz:
25.Apparently,thestaffoftheJusticeinchargefailedtoverifythePETITIONanditsannexesuptoitslastpage,
thus,theerroneousfindingthattherewasnonsubmissionoftheproofofservice26.Inturn,thesameomission
was hoisted upon the other members of this Honorable Court who took the observation from the office of the
Justiceincharge,tobetheobtainingfact,whenintruthandinfact,itisnot27
The petitioner and its counsel thereby exhibited their plain inability to accept the ill consequences of their own
shortcomings,andinsteadshowedanunabashedpropensitytoreadilylayblameonothersliketheCourtandits
Members.Indoingso,theyemployedharshanddisrespectfullanguagethataccusedtheCourtanditsMembers
ofignoranceandrecklessnessintheperformanceoftheirfunctionofadjudication.
WedonottoleratesuchharshanddisrespectfullanguagebeingutteredagainsttheCourtanditsMembers.We
consider the accusatory language particularly offensive because it was unfounded and undeserved. As this
resolutionearlierclarifies,thepetitionforcertiorarididnotcontainaproperaffidavitofservice.Wedonotneedto
rehashtheclarification.Hadthepetitioneranditscounselbeenhumblertoaccepttheirselfinflictedsituationand
morecontrite,theywouldhavedesistedfromtheirharshnessanddisrespecttowardstheCourtanditsMembers.
Although we are not beyond error, we assure the petitioner and its counsel that our resolutions and
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_213525_2015.html

3/5

12/19/2016

G.R.No.213525

determinationsarearrivedatorreachedwithmuchcareandcaution,awarethatthelives,propertiesandrightsof
thelitigantsarealwaysatstake.Iftherebeerrors,theywouldbeunintended,andwouldbetheresultofhuman
oversight. But in this instance the Court and its Members committed no error. The petition bore only cut
reproductionsofthesupposedregistryreceipts,whichevenamere"perfunctoryscrutiny"wouldnotpassasthe
originalregistryreceiptsrequiredbytheRulesofCourt.
Accordingly, the petitioner and its counsel, Atty. Eduardo S. Fortaleza, should fully explain in writing why they
shouldnotbepunishedforindirectcontemptofcourtfortheirharshanddisrespectfullanguagetowardstheCourt
anditsMembersand,inhiscase,Atty.Fortalezashouldfurthershowcausewhyheshould"notbedisbarred.
WHEREFORE,theCourtDENIEStheMotionforReconsiderationforitslackofmeritORDERSthepetitionerand
itscounsel,Atty.EduardoS.Fortaleza,toshowcauseinwritingwithinten(10)daysfromnoticewhytheyshould
not be punished for indirect contempt of court and FURTHER DIRECTS Atty. Fortaleza to show cause in the
sameperiodwhyheshouldnotbedisbarred.
SOORDERED.
LUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
(OnLeave)
MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO*
ChiefJustice
ANTONIOT.CARPIO**
ActingChiefJustice

PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJustice

(OnOfficialLeave)
ARTUROD.BRION***
AssociateJustice

DIOSDADOM.PERALTA
AssociateJustice

MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice

MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
AssociateJustice

JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
AssociateJustice

JOSECATRALMENDOZA
AssociateJustice

BIENVENIDOL.REYES
AssociateJustice

ESTELAM.PERLASBERNABE
AssociateJustice

MARVICM.V.F.LEONEN
AssociateJustice

AssociateJustice

AssociateJustice
FRANCISH.JARDELEZA
AssociateJustice
CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above
resolutionwerereachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt.
ANTONIOT.CARPIO
ActingChiefJustice

Footnotes
*

OnLeave.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_213525_2015.html

4/5

12/19/2016

G.R.No.213525
**

ActingChiefJusticeperSpecialOrderNo.1914.

***

Onofficialleave.

Rollo,pp.229242.

Id.at226.

Id.at226.

Id.at18.

Id.at1322.

Id.at7191.

Id.at92.

Id.at92104.

Id.at70.

10

Id.at6.

11

G.R.No.141524,September14,2005,469SCRA633.

12

A.M.No.1194SC,November13,2012.

13

Cruzv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.123340,August29,2002,388SCRA72,8081.

14

Rollo,p.224.

15

Supranote1.

16

Rollo,pp.234235.

17

Section6,Rule42oftheRulesofCourt.

18

Reynav.CommissiononAudit,G.R.No.167219,February8,2011,647SCRA210,225.

19

Section1,Rule42,RulesofCourt.

20

Section3,Rule64,RulesofCourt,states:
Section3.Timetofilepetition.Thepetitionshallbefiledwithinthirty(30)daysfromnoticeofthe
judgment or final order or resolution sought to be reviewed. The filing of a motion for new trial or
reconsiderationofsaidjudgmentorfinalorderorresolution,ifallowedundertheproceduralrulesof
the Commission concerned, shall interrupt the period herein fixed. If the motion is denied, the
aggrievedpartymayfilethepetitionwithintheremainingperiod,butwhichshallnotbelessthanfive
(5)daysinanyevent,reckonedfromnoticeofdenial.

21

Rollo,p.7.

22

Patesv.CommissiononElections,G.R.No.184915,June30,2009,591SCRA481,488.

23

Supra,note11.

24

Cantonv.CityofCebu,G.R.No.152898,February12,2007,515SCRA441,448.

25

Rollo,pp.239242.

26

DelosSantosv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.169498,December11,2008,573SCRA690,700.

27

Rollo,p.238.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_213525_2015.html

5/5