G.R. No. 222810 - FORMER MUNICIPAL MAYOR CLARITO A. POBLETE, MUNICIPAL BUDGET OFFICER MA. DOLORES JEANETH BAWALAN, AND MUNICIPAL ACCOUNTANT NEPHTALI V. SALAZAR, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT. R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the instant Appeal is DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, ND Nos. 11-001-101 (10) to 11-012-101 (10) all dated June 2, 2011 are hereby AFFIRMED. [7] (Emphasis omitted) It found that pursuant to P.D. No. 1445 and case law, the contracts for various projects in 2004, 2006, and 2007 are void for being entered into without the necessary appropriation and certificate of availability of funds. [8] The petitioners, thus, filed a Petition for Review [9] with the COA Proper through the Commission Secretariat. The Ruling of the COA Proper On February 23, 2015, the COA issued the assailed Decision: [10] WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition for review is hereby DISMISSED for having been filed out of time. Accordingly, COA RO IV-A Decision No. 2013-19 dated August 1, 2013, which sustained ND Nos. 11-001-101(10) to 11-012-101(10), all dated June 2, 2011, on the payment of various local projects undertaken in years 2004, 2006 and 2007, in the total amount of [P]2,891,558.31, is final and executory. [11] (Emphasis omitted) The COA ruled that the Petition before it was filed out of time for failure of the petitioners to pay the required filing fees within the prescribed period. Under the 2009 Revised Rules of Procedure of the COA ( RRPC ), the perfection of an appeal shall be taken by filing a petition for review before the Commission Secretariat within the time remaining of the six months or the 180-day reglementary period, with proof of payment of the prescribed fees attached thereto. [12] The COA found that the petitioners belatedly paid the filing fees. Specifically, the petitioners paid the prescribed fees only on October 14, 2013, or after 212 days counted from the time they received the NDs on June 6, 2011. [13] On November 27, 2015, the COA issued a Resolution [14] denying the petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration. Hence, this Petition. The Issue The sole issue for the Court's consideration is whether the COA gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the case on account of the petitioners' failure to file the Petition for Review within the reglementary period. The Ruling of the Court The petitioners argued that the COA gravely abused its discretion when it disregarded its own rules of procedure. Under the RRPC, the running of the six-month prescriptive period is suspended upon the filing of an appeal. This is without regard to the date when the filing fee is directed to be, and actually paid. [15] In fact, the petitioners insisted that they were made to pay the required fees twice. [16] Moreover, the RRPC does not state that the payment of the prescribed fees is mandatory and jurisdictional, contrary to the ruling of the COA in the assailed Decision. The petitioners also pointed out that the Commission Secretary through a Letter, dated August 29, 2013, cured the belated payment of the filing fee, since the Commission Secretary only ordered the payment, amounting to P2,920.48, on even date. [17] Also, the RRPC expressly st