G.R. No. 218240 - Paluca vs. Commission on Audit

Engr. Pablito S. Paluca, in his capacity as General Manager of Dipolog City Water District (DCWD), filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65.
The petition sought to annul the Commission on Audit (COA) Decision No. 2015-005 dated January 28, 2015, which denied Paluca’s appeal and affirmed various Notices of Disallowance (NDs) issued against the DCWD.
The disputed NDs include:

ND DCWD 2007-011 (dated March 20, 2007) concerning payment of Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) and Amelioration Assistance for 1993–1996.
ND 2007-001 (2006) to ND 2007-004 (2006) dated September 3, 2007, covering payments for Philam Care, healthcare insurance, COLA, amelioration allowance, uniform allowance, anniversary and performance bonus, and government share in provident fund.
ND DCWD 2008-001 to ND DCWD 2008-004 (all dated January 8, 2008) concerning overpayments and unauthorized disbursements, including the government’s share in employees’ provident fund.

After the Regional Legal and Adjudication Office (RLAO) audited DCWD, several NDs were issued, with disallowances based on the lack of legal basis in the applicable laws or circulars.
The DCWD endorsed the NDs to its private counsel, Atty. Ric Luna, through an undated letter.
It appears that Atty. Luna only filed an appeal for ND DCWD 2007-011, and even then, the appeal was later denied by the RLAO in Decision No. 2008-04 dated January 20, 2008.
The six-month appeal period prescribed under Section 48 of PD 1445 (Government Auditing Code) expired for the other NDs.
Despite the lapse in time, DCWD eventually filed its appeal on August 10, 2009—twenty-three months after receiving the disputed NDs.
Consequently, the COA issued a Notice of Finality of Decision on November 16, 2009 that encompassed all these NDs.

Petitioner argued that while a client is generally bound by the acts or omissions of his counsel, an exception should be made if the negligence is so grave that it results in serious injustice.
Paluca maintained that his counsel’s failure to timely file and follow up on the appeals deprived him of the opportunity to fairly present his case.
He cited precedents suggesting that in cases where counsel’s negligence prevents a client from fully defending his interests, relief in the form of reopening the case may be warranted.
However, it was noted that there was no sufficient demonstration to conclusively show that the negligence of his counsel resulted in such undue prejudice.
The court emphasized that merely endorsing the NDs to counsel without subsequent follow-up does not absolve the petitioner of the consequences of his counsel's negligence.

Whether the COA correctly dismissed the petition on the grounds that the appeal was filed out of time.

Central to the issue is the interpretation and application of the six-month appeal period provided under Section 48 of PD 1445.
The question extended to the validity of asserting that a client may be excused for failure to timely file an appeal due to counsel’s negligence.
Whether the petitioner sufficiently demonstrated that the alleged negligence was so gross, reckless, or inexcusable as to merit an exception to the general rule binding a client to the acts of his counsel.