ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 145385.February 27, 2001]

MARCELINO et al. vs. COA

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 27 2001.

G.R. No. 145385 (Rodolfo S. Marcelino and Zoilo L. Andin, Jr. vs. Commission on Audit.)

Movant seeks a reconsideration of the Court's Resolution, dated 12 December 2000, dismissing the Petition for Certiorari (denominated as a "Petition for Review on Certiorari") filed by Rodolfo S. Marcelino and Zoilo L. Andin, Jr., to assail COA Decision No. 98-485, dated 29 September 1998, and COA Resolution No. 2000-279, dated 26 September 2000, denying the appeal from the 20^th September 1996 ruling of the Commission on Audit, Regional Office No. 10, of Cagayan de Oro City.

Petitioners received a copy of the COA Decision No. 98-485 on 03 February 1999 and moved for its reconsideration on 26 February 1999.The public respondent Commission denied the motion for reconsideration in its Resolution No. 2000-279, a copy of which was received by petitioners on 13 October 2000.

On 26 October 2000, petitioners filed a motion for extension of time to file a "Petition for Review on Certiorari" for fifteen (15) days from expiration of the reglementary period.The incident was granted by the Court in its Resolution of 14 November 2000.

Meantime, petitioners posted a "Petition for Review on Certiorari" on 10 November 2000.Acting thereon, the Court denied the petition in its Resolution, dated 12 December 2000, for having been filed out of time and the payment of legal fees not having been, likewise, made on time.

Petitioners contend that the petition has been filed within the extended period granted by the Court.

The applicable provision is Rule 64 of the Revised Rules on Civil Procedure (on the "Review of Judgments and Final Orders or Resolutions of the Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit"), which enunciates:

SEC. 3.Time to file petition. --- The petition shall be filed within thirty (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 of said judgment or final order or resolution, if allowed under the procedural rules of the Commission concerned, shall interrupt the period herein fixed.If the motion is denied, the aggrieved party may file the petition within the remaining period, but which shall not be less than five (5) days in any event, reckoned from notice of denial.

From the time that petitioners received a copy of COA Decision No. 98-485, twenty (22) days had already lapsed.Hence, when they received a copy of COA Decision No. 2000-279, denying their motion for reconsideration, only eight (8) days were left, i.e., until 21 October 2000, to bring the case before the Supreme Court via a Petition for Certiorari which is the appropriate remedy therefor.The fifteen-(15)-day extension should be reckoned from 21 October 2000, which means that they had only until 05 November 2000 to file the petition.The petition, however, was posted only on 10 November 2000 or five (5) days beyond the extended period.

WHEREFORE, the instant motion for reconsideration should be, as it is so hereby, denied for lack of compelling reason to reverse the assailed resolution.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE