G.R. No. 213525; 27 Jan. 2015
Posted By: Alaine Joyce on July 24, 2018
FACTS:
Respondent Provincial Government of Antique (LGU) and the petitioner executed a memorandum of agreement concerning the life insurance coverage of qualified barangay secretaries, treasurers and tanod, and subsequently submitting the corresponding disbursement voucher to COA- Antique for pre-audit. COA disallowed the payment for lack of legal basis under the Local Government Code. Consequently, petitioner filed its petition for money claim in the COA which denied its petition.
Petitioner received a copy of the COA decision on December 14, 2012, and filed its motion for reconsideration on January 14, 2013. However, the COA denied the motion, the denial being received by the petitioner on July 14, 2014.Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari on August 12, 2014, but petition was dismissed for (a) late filing of the petition; (b) the nonsubmission of proof of service and verified declaration; and (c) the failure to show graver abuse of discretion on the part of COA.
Petitioner contended that it has substantially complied with the rule despite the fact that its petition only bore the cut print-outs of what appeared to be the registry receipt numbers of the registered matters, not the registry receipts themselves. It also averred that the petition was filed on time since the fresh period rule also applies to petitions brought under Rule 64.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not petitioner complied with the rule on proof of service.
2. Whether or not Fresh Period Rule under Neypes applied to petition for certiorari under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court.
HELD:
1. Petitioner did not comply with the rule on proof of service.
The petitioner obviously ignores that Section 13, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court concerns two types of proof of service, namely: the affidavit and the registry receipt. The Rule requires 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 which must be appended to the paper being served. A compliance with the rule is mandatory, such that there is no proof of service if either or both are not submitted. The rules requires to be appended the registry receipt, not their reproductions. Hence, the cut print-outs did not substantially comply with the rule.
2. Fresh Period Rule under Neypes did not apply to the petition for certiorari under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court.
The reglementary periods under Rule 42 and Rule 64 are different. In the former, the aggrieved party is allowed 15 days to file the petition for review from receipt of the assailed decision or final order, or from receipt of the denial of a motion for new trial or reconsideration. In the latter, the petition is filed within 30 days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution sought to be reviewed. The filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration, if allowed under the procedural rules of the Commission concerned, interrupts the period; hence, should the motion be denied, the aggrieved party may file the petition within the remaining period, which shall not be less than 5 days in any event, reckoned from the notice of denial.
Considering that it received the notice of denial on July 14m 2014, it had only until July 19, 2014 to file the petition. However, it filed the petition on August 13, 2014, which was 25 days too late.
