LANTO v. CA

NINI A. LANTO vs. COURT OF APPEALS

GR No. 217189

April 18, 2017

FACTS:

Labrador was the former Chief of the POEA's Employment Services Regulation Division. On May 2, 1997, then Labor Secretary Leonardo A. Quisumbing ordered his dismissal from service as he was found to have bribed a certain MadolineVillapando, an overseas Filipino worker, in the amount of P6,200.00 in order to expedite the issuance of her overseas employment certificate. Labrador's dismissal was affirmed on appeal by the Civil Service Commission through CSC Resolution No. 03-0339 dated March 12, 2003, and his subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied through CSC Resolution No. 040547 dated May 17, 2004.

In a Resolution dated January 26, 2000 (January 26, 2000 Resolution), the Court affirmed Labrador's conviction and subsequently denied his motion for reconsideration with finality on March 15, 2000. Likewise, in a Resolution dated June 28, 2000, the Court denied Labrador's motion for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration with motion for new trial and prayer for referral to the Court En Banc, resulting in the January 26, 2000 Resolution's entry of judgment. On February 26, 2001,

Labradors counsel de oficio, Atty. Vicente Espina, manifested in open court that Labrador desires to apply for probation in accordance with Presidential Decree No. (PD) 968, as amended by PD 1990.

Through a letter dated March 3, 2006, Dimapilis-Baldoz sought the reconsideration of the Notice of Disallowance, asserting that the POEA should not be held liable for the refund of the foregoing amount since Labrador's employment was fully and promptly terminated upon receipt of the SB's March 2, 2004 Resolution. However, on October 29, 2009, the COA issued Decision No. 2009-121 which affirmed the Notice of Disallowance and reiterated that the amount covering the salaries and benefits of Labrador should not have been paid to him from August 1999 to March 31, 2004 pending final resolution of the criminal case against him.

ISSUE:

WHETHER OR NOT the COA committed grave abuse of discretion in holding the petitioner personally liable to refund the disallowed salary payments?

HELD:

The petition for certiorari is partly meritorious.

The petitioner is essentially assailing Decision No. 2009-121 and the Order of Execution dated November 25, 2013 she had received on December 18, 2013.

The time within which an aggrieved party may seek the review of an adverse judgment or final order or resolution through the special civil action governed by Rule 64 of the Rules of Court is fixed in Section 3, which states:

Section 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.

Nonetheless, the Court has recognized several justifications to suspend the strict adherence with rigid procedural rules like the doctrine of immutability, such as: (a) matters of life, liberty, honor or property; (b) the existence of special or compelling circumstances; (c) the merits of the case; (d) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules; (e) lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; and (f) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby.

WHEREFORE, the Court PARTIALLY GRANTS the petition for certiorari; and AFFIRMS Decision No. 2009-121 dated October 29, 2009 rendered by the Commission on Audit affirming Notice of Disallowance No. 2006-002 dated January 18, 2006, the Notice of Finality of Decision dated January 7, 2010, and the Orders of Execution dated October 26, 2011 and November 25, 2013 subject to the MODIFICATION that the portion pertaining to the personal liability of petitioner Nini A. Lanto is DELETED.