corresponding disbursement voucher to COA-Antique for pre-

2. G.R. No. 213525, January 27, 2015 audit.4 The latter office disallowed the payment for lack of
legal basis under Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government
FORTUNE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Code). Respondent LGU appealed but its appeal was denied.
INC., Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT (COA)
PROPER; COA REGIONAL OFFICE NO. VI-WESTERN
Consequently, the petitioner filed its petition for money claim
VISAYAS; AUDIT GROUP LGS-B, PROVINCE OF
in the COA.5 On November 15, 2012, the COA issued its
ANTIQUE; AND PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF
decision denying the petition,6 holding that under Section 447
ANTIQUE, Respondents.
and Section 458 of the Local Government Code only municipal
RESOLUTION or city governments are expressly vested with the power to
secure group insurance coverage for barangay workers; and
BERSAMIN, J.: noting the LGU’s failure to comply with the requirement of
(Fresh Period Rule) publication under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9184
(Government Procurement Reform Act).
Petitioner Fortune Life Insurance Company, Inc. seeks the
reconsideration1 of the resolution promulgated on August 19, The petitioner received a copy of the COA decision on
2014,2 whereby the Court dismissed its petition December 14, 2012,7 and filed its motion for reconsideration
for certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules on January 14, 2013.8 However, the COA denied the
of Court due to its non-compliance with the provisions of Rule motion,9 the denial being received by the petitioner on July 14,
64, particularly for: (a) the late filing of the petition; (b) the 2014.10chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
non-submission of the proof of service and verified declaration;
and (c) the failure to show grave abuse of discretion on the part Hence, the petitioner filed the petition for certiorari on August
of the respondents.3chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary 12, 2014, but the petition for certiorari was dismissed as earlier
Antecedents stated through the resolution promulgated on August 19, 2014
for (a) the late filing of the petition; (b) the non-submission of
the proof of service and verified declaration; and (c) the failure
Respondent Provincial Government of Antique (LGU) and the to show grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
petitioner executed a memorandum of agreement concerning respondents.cralawred
the life insurance coverage of qualified barangay secretaries,
treasurers and tanod, the former obligating P4,393,593.60 for Issues
the premium payment, and subsequently submitting the
 proof of service, namely: the affidavit and the registry
In its motion for reconsideration, the petitioner submits that it receipt, viz:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
filed the petition for certiorari within the reglementary period
Section 13. Proof of Service. – x x x. If service is made by
following the fresh period rule enunciated in Neypes v. Court
registered mail, proof shall be made by such affidavit and the
of Appeals;11 and that the petition for certiorari included an
registry receipt issued by the mailing office. The registry
affidavit of service in compliance with Section 3, Rule 13 of
return card shall be filed immediately upon its receipt by the
the Rules of Court. It admits having overlooked the submission
sender, or in lieu thereof the unclaimed letter together with the
of a verified declaration; and prays that the declaration attached
certified or sworn copy of the notice given by the postmaster to
to the motion for reconsideration be admitted by virtue of its
the addressee.
substantial compliance with the Efficient Use of Paper
Rule12 by previously submitting a compact disc (CD)
containing the petition for certiorari and its annexes. It Section 13 thus requires that if the service is done by registered
disagrees with the Court, insisting that it showed and proved mail, proof of service shall consist of the affidavit of the person
grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COA in issuing the effecting the mailing and the registry receipt, both of which
assailed decision.cralawred must be appended to the paper being served.  A compliance
with the rule is mandatory, such that there is no proof of
Ruling
service if either or both are not
submitted.13chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
We deny the motion for reconsideration for being without
merit. Here, the petition for certiorari only carried the affidavit of
service executed by one Marcelino T. Pascua, Jr., who declared
I
that he had served copies of the petition by registered mail
Petitioner did not comply with
“under Registry Receipt Nos. 70449, 70453, 70458, 70498 and
the rule on proof of service
70524 attached to the appropriate spaces found on pages 64-65
of the petition.”14 The petition only bore, however, the
The petitioner claims that the affidavit of service attached to cut print-outs of what appeared to be the registry receipt
the petition for certiorari complied with the requirement on numbers of the registered matters, not the registry receipts
proof of service. themselves. The rule requires to be appended the registry
receipts, not their reproductions. Hence, the cut print-outs did
The claim is unwarranted. The petitioner obviously ignores that not substantially comply with the rule. This was the reason why
Section 13, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court concerns two types of the Court held in the resolution of August 19, 2014 that the
petitioner did not comply with the requirement of proof of order of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), or the
service.15chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary Commission on Audit (COA). The petition is not designed to
correct only errors of jurisdiction, not errors of
II
judgment.18 Questions of fact cannot be raised except to
Fresh Period Rule under Neypes
determine whether the COMELEC or the COA were guilty of
did not apply to the petition for certiorari
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court
jurisdiction.

The petitioner posits that the fresh period rule applies because The reglementary periods under Rule 42 and Rule 64 are
its Rule 64 petition is akin to a petition for review brought different. In the former, the aggrieved party is allowed 15 days
under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court; hence, conformably with to file the petition for review from receipt of the assailed
the fresh period rule, the period to file a Rule 64 petition decision or final order, or from receipt of the denial of a motion
should also be reckoned from the receipt of the order denying for new trial or reconsideration.19 In the latter, the petition is
the motion for reconsideration or the motion for new filed within 30 days from notice of the judgment or final order
trial.16chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary or resolution sought to be reviewed. The filing of a motion for
new trial or reconsideration, if allowed under the procedural
The petitioner’s position cannot be sustained. rules of the Commission concerned, interrupts the period;
hence, should the motion be denied, the aggrieved party may
There is no parity between the petition for review under Rule file the petition within the remaining period, which shall not be
42 and the petition for certiorari under Rule 64. less than five days in any event, reckoned from the notice of
denial.20chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
As to the nature of the procedures, Rule 42 governs an appeal
from the judgment or final order rendered by the Regional Trial The petitioner filed its motion for reconsideration on January
Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Such appeal is 14, 2013, which was 31 days after receiving the assailed
on a question of fact, or of law, or of mixed question of fact decision of the COA on December 14, 2012.21  Pursuant to
and law, and is given due course only upon a prima Section 3 of  Rule 64, it had only five days from receipt of the
facie showing that the Regional Trial Court committed an error denial of its motion for reconsideration to file the petition.
of fact or law warranting the reversal or modification of the Considering that it received the notice of the denial on July
challenged judgment or final order.17 In contrast, the petition 14, 2014, it had only until July 19, 2014 to file the petition.
for certiorari under Rule 64 is similar to the petition However, it filed the petition on August 13, 2014, which was
for certiorari under Rule 65, and assails a judgment or final 25 days too late.
 Pimentel who offered an opinion on the
We ruled in Pates v. Commission on Elections  that the belated
22
matter.25chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
filing of the petition for certiorari under Rule 64 on the belief
that the fresh period rule should apply was fatal to the Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and
recourse. As such, the petitioner herein should suffer the same whimsical exercise of judgment as to be equivalent to lack or
fate for having wrongly assumed that the fresh period excess of jurisdiction; in other words, power is exercised in an
rule under Neypes23 applied. Rules of procedure may be relaxed arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or
only to relieve a litigant of an injustice that is not personal hostility; and such exercise is so patent or so gross as
commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal
complying with the prescribed procedure.24 Absent this reason either to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in
for liberality, the petition cannot be allowed to prosper. contemplation of law.26chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
III
A close look indicates that the petition for certiorari did not
Petition for certiorari  further lacked merit
sufficiently disclose how the COA committed grave abuse of
its discretion. For sure, the bases cited by the petitioner did not
The petition for certiorari is also dismissible for its lack of approximate grave abuse of discretion. To start with, the
merit. supposed delays taken by the COA in deciding the appeal were
neither arbitrary nor whimsical on its part. Secondly, the mere
The petitioner insists on having fully shown that the COA terseness of the denial of the motion for reconsideration was
committed grave abuse of discretion, to wit: (1) the challenged not a factor in demonstrating an abuse of discretion. And,
decision was rendered by a divided COA proper; (2) the COA lastly, the fact that Senator Pimentel, even if he had been the
took almost a year before promulgating its decision, and more main proponent of the Local Government Code in the
than a year in resolving the  motion for reconsideration, in Legislature, expressed an opinion on the issues different from
contravention of the express mandate of the Constitution; (3) the COA Commissioners’ own did not matter, for it was the
the resolution denying the motion for reconsideration was latter’s adjudication that had any value and decisiveness on the
made up of only two sentences; (4)  the matter involved a novel issues by virtue of their being the Constitutionally officials
issue that called for an interpretation of the pertinent provisions entrusted with the authority for that purpose.
of the Local Government Code; and (5) in issuing the
resolution, COA Commissioners Grace Pulido-Tan and Heidi It is equally relevant to note that the COA denied the money
L. Mendoza made it appear that they knew the Local claim of the petitioner for the further reason of lack of
Government Code better than former Senator Aquilino sufficient publication as required by the Government
Procurement Act. In that light, the COA acted well within its accused the Court and its Members of ignorance and
authority in denying the petitioner’s claim. recklessness in the performance of their function of
adjudication.
IV
Petitioner and its counsel
We do not tolerate such harsh and disrespectful language being
exhibited harshness and disrespect
uttered against the Court and its Members. We consider the
towards the Court and its Members
accusatory language particularly offensive because it was
unfounded and undeserved. As this resolution earlier clarifies,
The petitioner contends that the Court erred in appreciating the the petition for certiorari did not contain a proper affidavit of
petitioner’s non-compliance with the requirement of the proof service. We do not need to rehash the clarification. Had the
of service, alleging that even “a perfunctory scrutiny” of the petitioner and its counsel been humbler to accept their self-
petition for certiorari and its annexes could have easily shown inflicted situation and more contrite, they would have desisted
that it had attached an affidavit of service to the petition. It from their harshness and disrespect towards the Court and its
goes on to make the following statements, Members. Although we are not beyond error, we assure the
viz:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary petitioner and its counsel that our resolutions and
determinations are arrived at or reached with much care and
25. Apparently, the staff of the Justice-in-charge failed to caution, aware that the lives, properties and rights of the
verify the PETITION and its annexes up to its last page, thus, litigants are always at stake. If there be errors, they would be
the erroneous finding that there was non-submission of the unintended, and would be the result of human oversight. But in
proof of service; this instance the Court and its Members committed no error.
The petition bore only cut reproductions of the supposed
26. In turn, the same omission was hoisted upon the other registry receipts, which even a mere “perfunctory scrutiny”
members of this Honorable Court who took the observation would not pass as the original registry receipts required by
from the office of the Justice-in-charge, to be the obtaining the Rules of Court.
fact, when in truth and in fact, it is not;27
Accordingly, the petitioner and its counsel, Atty. Eduardo S.
The petitioner and its counsel thereby exhibited their plain Fortaleza, should fully explain in writing why they should not
inability to accept the ill consequences of their own be punished for indirect contempt of court for their harsh and
shortcomings, and instead showed an unabashed propensity to disrespectful language towards the Court and its Members; and,
readily lay blame on others like the Court and its Members. In in his case, Atty. Fortaleza should further show cause why he
doing so, they employed harsh and disrespectful language that should not be disbarred.chanrobleslaw
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the Motion for
Reconsideration for its lack of merit; ORDERS the petitioner
and its counsel, Atty. Eduardo S. Fortaleza, to show cause in
writing within ten (10) days from notice why they should not
be punished for indirect contempt of court; and FURTHER
DIRECTS Atty. Fortaleza to show cause in the same period
why he should not be disbarred.

SO ORDERED.cralawlawlibrary