TOMAS R. OSMEÑA v. THE
COMMISSION ON AUDIT
G.R. No. 188818
May 31, 2011
FACTS:
In preparation for the
1994 Palarong Pambansa, the City engaged the services of WT Construction, Inc.
(WTCI) and Dakay Construction and Development Company (DCDC) to construct and
renovate the Cebu City Sports Complex. Osmeña was authorized by the Sanggunian represent
the City and to execute the construction contracts. Osmena issued extra work
orders that were not covered by any Supplemental Agreement, nor was there a
prior authorization from the Sanggunian. The supplemental agreements were
refused by the Sanggunian. The extra work was therefore not covered by the
necessary appropriation to effect payment, prompting WTCI and DCDC to file two
separate collection cases before the RTC.
The RTC found the claims
meritorious and ordered the City to pay. The decisions were affirmed on appeal.
To satisfy the judgment debts, the Sanggunian passed the required appropriation
ordinances. The City Auditor issued two notices disallowing the payment of
litigation, and held Osmena, the members of the Sanggunian, and the City
Administrator liable. The City Auditor concluded that the expenses were
unnecessary for which the public officers should be held liable in their
personal capacities pursuant to the law.
Osmena and the members
of the Sanggunian sought reconsideration. The COA Regional Office modified the
City Auditor’s decision and absolved the Sanggunian members from liability and
put the liability solely on Osmena. The COA Regional Office’s Decision was
sustained by the COA’s National Director for Legal Adjudication. COA denied
Osmena’s motion for reconsideration. Osmena then filed a petition for
certiorari under Rule 64 to assail the COA’s Decision.
Osmeña filed his motion
for reconsideration, of the COA’s May 6, 2008 Decision, 18 days from his
receipt thereof, leaving him with 12 days to file a Rule 64 petition against
the COA ruling. He argues that the remaining period should be counted not from
the receipt of the COA’s June 8, 2009 Resolution by the Office of the Mayor of
Cebu City on June 29, 2009, but from the time he officially reported back to
his office on July 15, 2009, after his trip abroad. Since he is being made
liable in his personal capacity, he reasons that the remaining period should be
counted from his actual knowledge of the denial of his motion for
reconsideration. Corollary, he needed time to hire a private counsel who would
review his case and prepare the petition.
ISSUE:
May the procedural rules
for filing a petition for the review of judgments and final orders or
resolutions of the COMELEC and COA be relaxed?
RULING:
Section 3, Rule 64 of
the Rules of Court states:
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.
The Court ruled that
there have been recognized exceptions to the Rules but only for the most
compelling reasons where stubborn disobedience to the Rules would defeat rather
than serve the ends of justice. Every plea for a liberal construction of the
Rules must at least be accompanied by an explanation of why the party-litigant
failed to comply with the Rules and by a justification for the requested
liberal construction. Where strong considerations of substantive justice are
manifest in the petition, this Court may relax the strict application of the
rules of procedure in the exercise of its legal jurisdiction.
Osmeña cites the
mandatory medical check-ups he had to undergo in Houston, Texas after his
cancer surgery in April 2009 as reason for the delay in filing his petition for
certiorari. Due to his weakened state of health, he claims that he could not
very well be expected to be bothered by the affairs of his office and had to
focus only on his medical treatment. He could not require his office to attend
to the case as he was being charged in his personal capacity.
We find Osmeña’s reasons
sufficient to justify a relaxation of the Rules. Although the service of the
June 8, 2009 Resolution of the COA was validly made on June 29, 2009 through
the notice sent to the Office of the Mayor of Cebu City, we consider July 15,
2009 – the date he reported back to office – as the effective date when he was
actually notified of the resolution, and the reckoning date of the period to
appeal. If we were to rule otherwise, we would be denying Osmeña of his right
to appeal the Decision of the COA, despite the merits of his case.
Moreover, a
certiorari petition filed under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court must be verified,
and a verification requires the petitioner to state under oath before an
authorized officer that he has read the petition and that the allegations
therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge. Given that Osmeña was
out of the country to attend to his medical needs, he could not comply with the
requirements to perfect his appeal of the Decision of the COA.
While the Court has accepted
verifications executed by a petitioner’s counsel who personally knows the truth
of the facts alleged in the pleading, this was an alternative not available to
Osmeña, as he had yet to secure his own counsel. Osmeña could not avail of the
services of the City Attorney, as the latter is authorized to represent city
officials only in their official capacity.
No comments:
Post a Comment