March 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 184522 : March 08, 2011]
RODOLFO M. AGDEPPA V. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN REYNALDO A. VILLAR, COMMISSIONER JUANITO G. ESPINO, JR., ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND GENERAL COUNSEL ELIZABETH S. ZOSA
"G.R. No. 184522 (RODOLFO M. AGDEPPA v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN REYNALDO A. VILLAR, COMMISSIONER JUANITO G. ESPINO, JR., ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND GENERAL COUNSEL ELIZABETH S. ZOSA)
RESOLUTION
Before the Court is a petition for certiorari[1] assailing the Letter dated 30 October 2007[2] of respondent Elizabeth S. Zosa (Zosa), Assistant Commissioner and General Counsel, Legal and Adjudication Sector of the Office of the General Counsel, and the Resolution dated 8 August 2008[3] of the Commission on Audit (COA) denominated as Decision No. 2008-067.
Rodolfo M. Agdeppa (petitioner) was among those charged before the COA in Adm. Cases Nos. 89-1082, 89-1083 and 89-1084 for Misconduct, Gross Negligence and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. Petitioner was then COA Auditor I assigned at the Auditing Unit of the National Housing Authority (NHA). In its 15 April 1993 Decision No. 2799,[4] the COA ruled:
WHEREFORE, respondents RICARDO B. CASTILLO, DEMETRIO CABISON, JR. and RODOLFO M. AGDEPPA are hereby found guilty of the charges of dishonesty, misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. While this is the first administrative charge on record against both respondents Castillo and Cabison unlike in the case of respondent Agdeppa who was charged and was found guilty in ADM. CASE NO. 87-906 (Exhibit "VV") for making a false statement in a material fact for which he was fined in an amount equivalent to his ten (10) days' salary, still the rule is that where conspiracy has been established, the act of one is the act of all and, therefore, the same penalty shall be meted on all the conspirators in these consolidated cases under consideration. Furthermore, since all the herein respondents have been found guilty of three (3) charges, the other two (2) (misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service) are considered aggravating circumstances to offset whatever mitigating circumstances (first offense and length of service) may be appreciated in favor of respondents Castillo and Cabison.
Accordingly, respondents Ricardo B. Castillo, Demetrio Cabison, Jr. and Rodolfo Agdeppa are considered resigned from the service effective upon their receipt of this Decision without prejudice to their entitlement to whatever benefit they have already earned.
x x x x"[5]
In 2001, petitioner filed a Petition for Payment of Retirement and Other Benefits with Backwages before the COA, praying for the following:
(1) ANNULLING and SETTING ASIDE the COA Decision No. 2799 and a new one rendered ORDERING the various Offices of this Honorable Commission to GRANT back wages from May 16, 1993, and the consideration of such granting in the computation of his retirement and other benefits; and (2) ORDERING the opening of Adm. Case No. 89-1085 and, after due proceedings, render JUDGMENT on the basis of the findings of facts and conclusions arrived at by the Commission Proper of January 10, 1989 in COA Decision No. 739.[6]
In COA Decision No. 2002-125 dated 18 July 2002, the COA denied the petition. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. In COA Decision No. 2002-267 dated 5 December 2002, the COA denied the motion for reconsideration with finality.
Thereafter, petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration praying that COA Decision No. 2799 be vacated and a new trial be granted. In COA Decision No. 2004-011 dated 25 May 2004, the COA denied the motion and ruled that COA Decision No. 2799 had become final long before the Omnibus Motion was filed.
Again, petitioner filed a Motion for New Trial of Administrative Cases Nos. 89-1082, 89-1083, 89-1084 and 89-1085. In COA Decision No. 2006-050 dated 22 August 2006, the COA ruled that the decision in question had long attained finality and could no longer be disturbed or reopened except to correct clerical errors or mistake.
Still, petitioner filed a Second Motion for New Trial/Petition for Rehearing of Administrative Case No. 89-1084 and a Motion to Resolve the Second Motion for New Trial/Petition for Rehearing.
In the assailed letter dated 30 October 2007 by respondent Zosa, petitioner's letter was returned without action in view of COA Decision No. 2006-050 dated 22 August 2006.
Petitioner again filed an Omnibus Motion before the COA.
In the assailed Decision No. 2008-067 dated 8 August 2008, the COA ruled:
For the last time, this Court hereby resolves and reiterates that the instant request is devoid of any merit. Considering that COA Decision No. 2006-050 already ruled on the finality of the subject case, it becomes immutable and unalterable and is no longer subject of any revision, modification, or appeal, x x x.[7]
The dispositive portion of the COA Resolution reads:
In view of the foregoing, the herein request is hereby DENIED and any motions or pleadings involving the instant case shall no longer be entertained.[8]
Hence, the petition before this Court on the ground that the COA committed grave abuse of discretion in denying his petition for rehearing of his administrative case.
The petition has no merit.
The COA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's request for rehearing of his case. COA Decision No. 2799 was promulgated on 15 April 1993. Petitioner only prayed for the setting aside of the decision in 2001, or eight (8) years later, when he filed his Petition for Payment of Retirement and Other Benefits with Backwages. Even after the COA denied his petition in COA Decision No. 2002-125 dated 18 July 2002, petitioner continued to file different motions with the same objective: to ask the COA to re-open and rehear his administrative case which had long become final and executory.
We already held that once a decision attains finality, it becomes the law of the case irrespective of whether the decision is erroneous or not and no court, not even this Court, has the power to revise, review, change, or alter the same.[9] We ruled:
Nothing is more settled in law than that once a judgment attains finality it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable. It may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest court of the land. Just as the losing party has the right to file an appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party also has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of his case. The doctrine of finality of judgment is grounded on the fundamental considerations of public policy and sound practice, and that, at the risk of occasional errors, the judgments or orders of courts must become final at some definite time fixed by law; otherwise, there would be no end to litigations, thus setting to naught the main role of courts of justice which is to assist in the enforcement of the rule of law and the maintenance of peace and order by setting justiciable controversies with finality.[10]
It is time that we put this case to an end. The COA correctly denied petitioner's request for rehearing of his administrative case considering that COA Decision No. 2799 issued on 15 April 1993 was already final and executory. The COA likewise did not abuse its discretion in ruling that any motion or pleading involving the case would no longer be entertained. Petitioner should no longer be allowed to clog the COA's docket by continuously challenging the COA decision which had long attained finality.
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition."
Nachura and Brion, JJ., on official leave.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.[2] Rollo, p. 46.
[3] Id. at 47-49. Signed by Chairman Reynaldo A. Villar and Commissioner Juanito G. Espino, Jr.
[4] Id. at 171-188. Signed by Chairman Eufemio Domingo and Commissioner Sofronio Ursal, with Commissioner Rogelio B. Espiritu abstaining.
[5] Id. at 186-187.
[6] Id. at 203.
[7] Id. at 48.
[8] Id. at 49.
[9] Zamboanga Forest Managers, Corp. v. New Pacific Timber and Supply Co, et al., G.R. No. 173342, 13 October 2010.
[10] Government Service Insurance System v. Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Branch 71, G.R. No. 175393, 18 December 2009, 608 SCRA 552, 580-581. Citation omitted.
