Case Summary (G.R. No. 213525)
Background of the Case and Procedural History
The Provincial Government of Antique entered into an MOA with the petitioner to provide life insurance coverage for barangay secretaries, treasurers, and tanods, with a premium obligation amounting to P4,393,593.60. The LGU submitted a disbursement voucher for pre-audit to COA-Antique, which was disallowed due to lack of legal basis under the Local Government Code. The LGU’s appeal was denied, followed by a petition for money claim filed by Fortune Life Insurance with COA. On November 15, 2012, COA issued a decision denying the petition, citing the LGU’s lack of authority under Sections 447 and 458 of the Local Government Code to secure insurance for barangay workers, as well as failure to comply with publication requirements under RA No. 9184. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on January 14, 2013, which COA denied on July 14, 2014. The petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari on August 12, 2014, which the Court dismissed on August 19, 2014 due to procedural defects and failure to show grave abuse of discretion.
Issues Raised in the Motion for Reconsideration
Fortune Life Insurance argued that it complied with the reglementary period for filing the certiorari petition based on the "fresh period" rule from Neypes v. Court of Appeals, asserting the filing was timely from the denial of the motion for reconsideration. The petitioner claimed to have attached an affidavit of service, admitting omission of a verified declaration but asserting its substantial compliance by previously submitting a compact disc containing the petition and annexes. It also disputed the Court's conclusion on the absence of grave abuse of discretion by COA.
Court’s Ruling on Proof of Service Requirement
The Court denied the motion for reconsideration, finding non-compliance with the mandatory proof of service requirements under Section 13, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court. The rule mandates that if service is made by registered mail, the proof must include both an affidavit of mailing and the original registry receipt (or certified postmaster’s notice of unclaimed letter). The petitioner only attached an affidavit and printouts of registry receipt numbers but failed to submit the actual registry receipts. The Court emphasized that this constitutes a fatal defect, invalidating the proof of service and justifying dismissal.
Applicability of the Fresh Period Rule
The Court rejected the petitioner’s contention that the fresh period rule from Neypes applies to petitions for certiorari under Rule 64. It clarified that a petition for review under Rule 42—governing appeals from regional trial courts—is fundamentally different from a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 which seeks to correct grave abuse of discretion by administrative quasi-judicial bodies such as the COA. Rule 42 allows filing a petition within 15 days from receipt of the denial of a motion for reconsideration, whereas Rule 64 permits filing within 30 days from notice of judgment or denial, with the filing of a motion for reconsideration interrupting and shortening the remaining period to at least five days after notice of denial. Because the petitioner filed the motion for reconsideration belatedly and the certiorari petition well beyond the five-day grace period, the petition was untimely and thus dismissed.
Merits of the Petition for Certiorari
On the merits, the Court found that the petitioner failed to establish grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of COA. The bases cited by petitioner, such as alleged delay in decision-making, brief content of the denial resolution, the novelty of the issue, and opinions contrasting those of a former senator, were insufficient. The Court clarified that grave abuse of discretion requires capricious, whimsical, or arbitrary action amounting to evasion of a positive duty, which was not present. Furthermore, COA's denial was supp
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 213525)
Facts and Antecedents
- The petitioner, Fortune Life Insurance Company, Inc., and the respondent Provincial Government of Antique (LGU) entered into a memorandum of agreement for life insurance coverage of qualified barangay secretaries, treasurers, and tanods.
- The LGU obligated the amount of P4,393,593.60 for the insurance premium and submitted the disbursement voucher to COA-Antique for pre-audit.
- COA-Antique disallowed the payment, citing the lack of legal basis under Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code), specifically that only municipal or city governments have the power to secure group insurance coverage for barangay workers.
- The LGU’s appeal was denied by COA; subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for money claim with COA.
- COA issued a decision on November 15, 2012, denying the petition based on:
- Sections 447 and 458 of the Local Government Code limiting authority to municipal or city governments.
- LGU’s failure to comply with the publication requirement under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9184 (Government Procurement Reform Act).
- The petitioner received the COA decision on December 14, 2012, and filed a motion for reconsideration on January 14, 2013. The motion was denied, with the petitioner receiving the denial on July 14, 2014.
- The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari on August 12, 2014, which was dismissed on August 19, 2014, for:
- Late filing of the petition.
- Non-submission of the proof of service and a verified declaration.
- Failure to show grave abuse of discretion by the respondents.
Issues Presented
- Whether the petition for certiorari was filed within the reglementary period, considering the fresh period rule from Neypes v. Court of Appeals.
- Whether the petition complied with the proof of service requirements under Section 3, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court.
- Whether the petitioner sufficiently showed grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COA.
- Whether the petitioner’s allegations of procedural irregularities and purported COA misconduct amounted to grave abuse of discretion.
- Whether the petitioner and counsel’s conduct constituted disrespect or contempt towards the Court.
Ruling and Legal Reasoning
I. Non-Compliance with Proof of Service Requirements
- Section 13, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court mandates two types of proof of service when service is made by registered mail: an affidavit of the person effecting the mailing and the registry receipt issued by the mailing office.
- The affidavit alone is insufficient if unaccompanied by the original registry receipts or their proper attachments.
- The petitioner submitted only cut print-outs of registry receipt numbers, not the actual registry receipts as required. This failure meant non-compliance with the mandatory proof of service rule.
- The Court accordingly upheld the dismiss