Case Digest (G.R. No. 213525)
Facts:
Fortune Life Insurance Company, Inc. v. Commission on Audit (COA) Proper; COA Regional Office No. VI‑Western Visayas; Audit Group LGS‑B, Province of Antique; and Provincial Government of Antique, G.R. No. 213525, November 21, 2017, the Supreme Court En Banc, Bersamin, J., writing for the Court.The petition arose from a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 challenging COA's pre‑audit disallowance of an insurance program implemented by the Provincial Government of Antique. The Supreme Court previously denied the petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration (dated October 1, 2014) on several procedural and substantive grounds: noncompliance with proof‑of‑service rules, late filing, failure to file the verified declaration required by the Efficient Use of Paper Rule, and failure to demonstrate grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COA. In that January 27, 2015 resolution the Court also required the petitioner and its counsel, Atty. Eduardo S. Fortaleza, to show cause why they should not be punished for indirect contempt for the allegedly offensive language used in the Motion for Reconsideration and directed Atty. Fortaleza to show cause why he should not be disbarred.
In response, the petitioner and Atty. Fortaleza filed a Joint Explanation (March 9, 2015) — now represented by former Senate President Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. — apologizing for the language used but explaining that they had believed they complied with proof‑of‑service requirements because the Makati City Central Post Office had allegedly adopted an electronic system and stopped issuing registry receipts; they also said time constraints had led to deficiencies in their filings and that Atty. Fortaleza had lacked “finesse” in drafting. The petitioner also filed a Manifestation with Motion for Leave to File Second Motion for Reconsideration, attaching a Second Motion for Reconsideration arguing inter alia that the Fresh Period Rule in Neypes v. Court of Appeals should apply so that the 30‑day period in Section 3, Rule 64 would be reckoned from notice of COA’s denial of reconsideration (July 14, 2014), and advancing various substantive complaints about COA’s interpretation of the Local Government Code and compliance with RA 9184 procurement/publication requirements.
The COA, through the Office of the Solicitor General, opposed the Second Motion for Reconsideration and the petitioner’s explanations, contending that the second motion was prohibited, that the Fresh Period Rule did not apply to Rule 64 petitions, that the petitioner’s interpretation of “final order” would render Section 3,...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Were the petitioner and its counsel guilty of indirect contempt for the offensive and disrespectful language in their Motion for Reconsideration, and should they be sanctioned (or disbarred)?
- Should the Court grant leave to file a Second Motion for Reconsideration (i.e., is a second motion allowable here)?
- Does the Fresh Period Rule (as articulated in Neypes) apply to petitions for certiorari under Rule 64 so as to extend the filing period, and do the petit...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)