FORTUNE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, COMPANY, INC. vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT AUDIT (COA) PROPER Facts
Resp Respon onde dent nt Provi Provinc ncia iall Gover Governm nmen entt of Antiq ntique ue (LGU (LGU)) and and the the peti petiti tione onerr execu execute ted d a memora memorandum ndum of agreem agreement ent concern concerning ing the life life insura insurance nce covera coverage ge of qualifi qualified ed baranga barangay y secretaries treasurers and tanod the former obligating P!"#"$#"%&'for the premium payment and subsequently submitting the corresponding disbursement voucher to A Antique for pre* audit% +he latter office disallo,ed the payment for lac- of legal basis under Republic Act .o% /0&' (Local Government ode)% Respondent LGU appealed but its appeal ,as denied% onsequently the petitioner filed its petition for money claim in the A% A 12.321 the petition holding that under 4ection !!/ and 4ection !$5 of the Local Government ode only municipal or city governments are expressly vested ,ith the po,er to secure group insurance coverage for barangay ,or-ers6 and noting the LGU7s failure to comply ,ith the requirement of publication under 4ection 80 of Republic Act .o% #05! (Government Procurement Reform Act)% +he petitioner received a copy of the A decision on 1ecember 0! 8'08 and filed its motion for reconsideration on 9anuary 0! 8'0"% :o,ever the A denied the motion the denial being received by the petitioner on 9uly 0! 8'0!% :ence the petitioner filed the petition for certiorari on August 08 8'0! but the petition for certiorari ,as dismissed on August 0#8'0! for (a) the late filing of the petition6 (b) the non* submission of the proof of service and verified declaration6 and (c) the failure to sho, grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondents% :ence this ;otion for Reconsideration% Issues
0% <. Petit Petitioner ioner complied complied ,ith ,ith rule rule on proof of service service 8% <. the the =fres =fresh h period period rule rule>> applies applies on on Rule Rule &! "% <. the the remedy remedy of erti ertiora orari ri is is proper proper Held ;otion for Reconsideration is ,ithout merit
0% .% +he petiti petitione onerr obviously obviously ignore ignoress that 4ection 4ection 0" Rule 0" of the Rules Rules of ourt concerns t,o types of proof of service namely? the affidavit and the registry receipt vi@? Section 13. Proof of Service. – x x x. If service is made by registered mail, proof shall be made by such affidavit and the registry receipt issued by the mailing office. The registry return card shall
REYES, TEOTI
be filed immediately upon its receipt by the sender, or in lieu thereof the unclaimed letter together ith the certified or sorn copy of the notice given by the postmaster to the addressee. Section 13 thus re!uires that if the service is done by registered mail, proof of service shall consist of the affidavit of the person effecting the mailing and the registry receipt, both of hich must be appended to the paper being served. " compliance ith the rule is mandatory, such that there is no proof of service if either or both are not submitted. :ere the petition for certiorari only carried the affidavit of service executed by one ;arcelino +% Pascua 9r% ,ho declared that he had served copies of the petition by registered mail ,ith registered receipts attached to the appropriate spaces found on pages &!*&$ of the petition%0! +he petition only bore ho,ever the cut print*outs of ,hat appeared to be the registry receipt numbers of the registered matters not the registry receipts themselves% +he rule requires to be appended the registry receipts not their reproductions% :ence the cut print*outs did not substantially comply ,ith the rule% 8% .% 9urisprudence dictates that the belated filing of the petition for certiorari under Rule &! on the belief that the fresh period rule should apply ,as fatal to the recourse% As such the petitioner herein should suffer the same fate for having ,rongly assumed that the fresh period rule under .eypes applied% Rules of procedure may be relaxed only to relieve a litigant of an inBustice that is not commensurate ,ith the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying ,ith the prescribed procedure% Absent this reason for liberality the petition cannot be allo,ed to prosper% +he petitioner filed its motion for reconsideration on 9anuary 0! 8'0" ,hich ,as "0 days after receiving the assailed decision of the A on 1ecember 0! 8'08% Pursuant to 4ection " of Rule &! it had only five days from receipt of the denial of its motion for reconsideration to file the petition% onsidering that it received the notice of the denial on 9uly 0! 8'0! it had only until 9uly0# 8'0! to file the petition% :o,ever it filed the petition on August 0" 8'0! ,hich ,as 8$ days too late% "% .o% Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and ,himsical exercise of Budgment as to be equivalent to lac- or excess of Burisdiction6 in other ,ords po,er is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion preBudice or personal hostility6 and such exercise is so patent or so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal either to perform the duty enBoined or to act at all in contemplation of la,% A close loo- indicates that the petition for certiorari did not sufficiently disclose ho, the A committed grave abuse of its discretion% Cor sure the bases cited by the petitioner did not approximate grave abuse of discretion% +o start ,ith the supposed delays ta-en by the A in deciding the appeal ,ere neither arbitrary nor ,himsical on its part% 4econdly the mere terseness
REYES, TEOTI
of the denial of the motion for reconsideration ,as not a factor in demonstrating an abuse of discretion% And lastly the fact that 4enator Pimentel even if he had been the main proponent of the Local Government ode in the Legislature expressed an opinion on the issues different from the A ommissioners7 o,n did not matter for it ,as the latter7s adBudication that had any value and decisiveness on the issues by virtue of their being the onstitutionally officials entrusted ,ith the authority for that purpose% 3t is equally relevant to note that the A denied the money claim of the petitioner for the further reason of lac- of sufficient publication as required by the Government Procurement Act% 3n that light the A acted ,ell ,ithin its authority in denying the petitioner7s claim%
REYES, TEOTI
