Hernandez v. Commission on Audit

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 244683. March 19, 2019.]

ESTER P. HERNANDEZ, petitioner, vs.COMMISSION ON AUDIT, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, CORPORATE GOVERNMENT SECTOR, CLUSTER 6, REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR JOSEPH B. ANACAY, AND THE OFFICE OF THE COA SUPERVISING AUDITOR-PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY AUDITOR BELEN B. LADINES, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution datedMARCH 19, 2019, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 244683 — Ester P. Hernandez, petitioner, v. Commission on Audit, Office of the Director, Corporate Government Sector, Cluster 6, represented by Director Joseph B. Anacay, and the Office of the COA Supervising Auditor-Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation represented by Auditor Belen B. Ladines, respondents.

RESOLUTION

After a careful review of the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the instant Petition for Certiorari filed under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65, of the Rules of Court, the Court resolves to DISMISS the same for failure of petitioner to show grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondent Commission on Audit-Commission Proper (COA-CP) in dismissing her appeal.

In this case, petitioner insists that her Petition for Review filed before respondent COA-CP was not filed out of time as the 6-month period should be reckoned from April 22, 2014, the date she received the supporting documents of the Notice of Disallowance.

The Court does not agree.

Section 3, Rule VII of the 2009 Revised Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Audit provides:

RULE VII — Petition for Review to the Commission Proper

xxx xxx xxx

Section 3. Period of Appeal. — The appeal shall be taken within the time remaining of the six (6) months period under Section 4, Rule V, taking into account the suspension of the running thereof under Section 5 of the same Rule in case of appeals from the Director's decision, or under Sections 9 and 10 of Rule VI in case of decision of the ASB.

In this case, records show that, upon receipt of the Notice of Disallowance on January 8, 2014, petitioner subsequently filed a Motion to Produce Supporting Documents requesting for the production of copies of all pertinent supporting documents in relation to the disallowed transaction, and for the suspension of the reglementary period within which to file her appeal pending her request for the production of the said documents. Although COA Director IV Joseph B. Anacay, in his letter dated March 13, 2014, noted petitioner's request for the suspension of the reglementary period to appeal, there was no showing that such request was granted. Thus, petitioner should not have assumed that it was granted. It is also significant to add that, as aptly pointed out by respondent COA-CP, petitioner only had eleven (11) days remaining from the time she received the Cluster Director's Decision within which to file a Petition for Review before respondent COA-CP, but it took her 43 days to file the said Petition.

In view of the foregoing, the Court finds no grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondent COA-CP in dismissing petitioner's appeal for late filing. It bears stressing that, for grave abuse of discretion to exist, there must be a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction — mere abuse of discretion is not enough. 1 CAIHTE

ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the Decision dated December 27, 2017 and Resolution dated December 21, 2018 of respondent Commission on Audit-Commission Proper." Bersamin, C.J., on official business. Hernando, J., on leave. (adv44)

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETAClerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.VMC Rural Electric Service Cooperative, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 535 Phil. 345, 358-359 (2006).