EN BANC
[G.R. No. 259259. April 26, 2022.]
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND DEVELOPMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HON. ROLANDO JOSELITO D. BAUTISTA, petitioner,vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated APRIL 26, 2022, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 259259 (Department of Social Welfare and Development, represented by its Secretary, Hon. Rolando Joselito D. Bautista vs. Commission on Audit). — After a judicious review of the case, the Court resolves to DISMISS the instant petition for certiorari under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court (Rules), in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules, for failure to exhaust the remedies available to petitioner Department of Social Welfare and Development, represented by its Secretary, Hon. Rolando Joselito D. Bautista (petitioner), in the Commission on Audit's (COA) Decision 1 dated January 31, 2020, pursuant to the 2009 Revised Rules of Procedure of COA. Under Section 3, Rule VIII of the said rules, a motion for reconsideration may be filed against the denial of an appeal within the time remaining of the period to appeal, which petitioner failed to file in this case. Here, petitioner failed to show that it was able to file a motion for reconsideration prior to filing its petition for certiorari before the Court.
In any event, even if the Court were to review the COA's Decision denying petitioner's appeal, the Court, nonetheless, finds that the COA did not commit grave abuse of discretion in rendering the assailed Decision. The COA correctly ruled that petitioner was unable to comply with the requisites for the engagement of a lawyer under retainer as indicated in COA Circular No. 86-255, as amended, requiring the prior conformity of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) and the COA. In this relation, the Court has consistently unauthorized the hiring of private lawyers without prior concurrence of the OSG and the COA, 2 as in this case. Here, petitioner belatedly requested the COA's concurrence for the engagement of a private lawyer only on May 22, 2018, or five (5) months and 22 days 3 after the expiration of the contract of services entered on November 11, 2016. Moreover, petitioner only sought the OSG's concurrence after it entered into the contract of service on December 14, 2016. SCaITA
The Compliance (with the Resolution dated March 22, 2022), dated April 19, 2022 filed by counsel for petitioner, among others, submitting its payment of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) for the Sheriff's Trust Fund, is NOTED." Gesmundo, C.J., no part. Perlas-Bernabe, J., on official leave. Lazaro-Javier, J., on official business. Gaerlan, J., on official leave. (12 & 46)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MARIFE M. LOMIBAO-CUEVASClerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 34-38. Decided by Chairperson Michael G. Aguinaldo and Commissioners Jose A. Fabia and Roland C. Pondoc.
2. See Alejandrino v. COA, G.R. No. 245400, November 12, 2019, 925 SCRA 403, 423-425; Oñate v. COA, 789 Phil. 260, 266-267 (2016); Almadovar v. Pulido-Tan, 773 Phil. 165, 175-176 (2015).
3. The contract of services expired on December 31, 2017.