G.R. No. 222217 - SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, when a party is represented by counsel, the reckoning point of the receipt of a judgment, final order or resolution shall be the date of receipt thereof by the party's counsel. Respondent's contention that Section 7, Rule IV of the COA Rules is the applicable rule in the service of the COA-RD Decision to petitioner rather than Section 2, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, is not well taken. Rule IV is entitled "Proceedings before the Auditor." As such, the provision on service of copies of orders or decisions pertains to those issued by the Auditor and not by the COA Regional Director. This is evident from Section 6 thereof which clearly refers to "ND, NC, NS or other order or decision of the Auditor." Considering that Rule V of the COA Rules, which governs proceedings before the Regional Director, does not specifically provide for the procedure by which a decision of the Regional Director shall be served on a party who is represented by counsel, the Rules of Court will apply. As admitted by petitioner, while its Legal Services Division received a copy of the COA-RD Decision on January 9, 2014, it was only transmitted to its Corporate Legal Department on January 10, 2014 (Friday), and finally, to the handling lawyer on January 13, 2014 (Monday). The question necessarily arises as to which entity is considered the counsel of petitioner at the time the COA-RD Decision was served, such that service upon such entity would again trigger the running of the 180-day reglementary period. In one of Our resolutions in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Panlilio­Luciano , [30] We explained that "[u]nder Section 10, Book IV, Title III, Chapter 3 of the Administrative Code of 1987, it is the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) which acts as the principal law office of all GOCCS, their subsidiaries, other corporate offsprings and government acquired asset corporations." However, in Phividec Industrial Authority v. Capitol Steel Corporation , [31] We ruled that under exceptional circumstances, a GOCC may hire a private counsel with written conformity and acquiescence of the Solicitor General or the Government Corporate Counsel, as the case may be, as well as written concurrence of the COA. While petitioner attached the OGCC's letter dated July 10, 2014 [32] granting petitioner's request to deputize the SSS Office of the Senior Vice President/Chief Legal Counsel and the Legal Services Division to represent it and its officials and employees in cases involving audit findings and disallowances by the COA in any forum, the records are bereft of any indication that petitioner's Legal Services Division or Corporate Legal Department were deputized at the time the COA-RD Decision was served. However, since respondent did not question whether petitioner's legal department was duly deputized by the OGCC when it handled the case before the COA-RD and, subsequently, before the COA-Proper, there was no impediment for the litigation to be maintained. Wheth