G.R. No. 217075 - SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM (SSS), VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT (COA).D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , this Commission hereby DENIES the Petition for Review for lack of merit and AFFIRMS Legal Services Sector Decision No. 2010-025 dated August 2010 and Notice of Disallowance No. SSS-2007-001 (2005) dated January 9, 2007 disallowing the payment of Counterpart Collective Negotiation Agreement Benefits to Social Security System employees who are not covered by the collective negotiating unit in the total amount of P6,180,000.00." [7] From this decision, the SSS filed a motion for reconsideration on 11 June 2014, but the same was denied by the COA Commission Proper En Banc, as shown in the Notice, dated 4 February 2015 and received by SSS on the same date. [8] The Notice states that "Please take notice that the Commission Proper (CP) en banc issued a Resolution on November 20, 2014, which reads as follows: xxxx The CP denied the Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit. The movant failed to raise a new matter or show sufficient ground to justify a reconsideration of COA Decision No. 2014-069 dated May 8, 2014."' On 13 February 2015, the SSS filed a Manifestation with Motion for Clarification and Disclosure of Resolution, dated 20 November 2014, and Minutes of the Meeting of the Commission Proper , [9] requesting that it be provided with a certified true copy of the purported minutes "categorically and squarely addressing and clarifying" how the issues raised in its motion for reconsideration were evaluated and specifically resolved. [10] On 12 March 2015, the COA responded with a Letter [11] stating that the resolution of the Commission Proper is copied verbatim in the Notice. Further, the COA explained that the format of the Notice denying the motion for reconsideration is expressly allowed by COAResolution No. 2013-018, dated 30 September 2013, amending Section 12, Rule X of the 2009 Revised Rules ofProcedure of the COA. The Petition and Comment On 20 March 2015, the SSS filed the instant petition under Rule 64, citing the following grounds for its allowance: I. RESPONDENT'S DECISION AFFIRMING ND NO. 2007-001 (2005) DATED 9 JANUARY 2007 AND ITS PURPORTED RESOLUTION DISMISSING PETITIONER'S MR MENTIONED IN THE UNDATED NOTICE OF RESPONDENT'S COMMISSION SECRETARY ARE CONTRARY TO FACTS, LAWS AND THE BASIC NOTION OF FAIR PLAY; II. RESPONDENT'S DECISION NOT TO DISCLOSE AND FURNISH PETITIONER WITH ITS PURPORTED RESOLUTION DATED 20 NOVEMBER 2014 AND THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING SUPPOSEDLY SIGNED BY THE MEMBERS OF RESPONDENT IS VIOLATIVE OF DUE PROCESS AND AMOUNTS TO GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION. [12] In its Comment, [13] filed on 2 November 2015, the COA Commission Proper, through the Office of the Solicitor General, countered that: I. THE INSTANT PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WAS FILED OUT OF TIME IN VIOLATION OF THE PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF THE RULES OF COURT AND THE 2009 REVISED RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT (RRPC); II. COA DID NOT COMMIT GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS