G.R. No. 218383 - THE OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF ILOILO PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT HEREIN REPRESENTED BY ATTY. EDGAR CLAUDIO O. SUMIDO, VS. THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, CHAIRPERSON MA. GRACIA M. PULIDO-TAN, COMMISSIONER HEIDI L. MENDOZAAND COMMISSIONER JOSE A. FABIA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the instant petition for review is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, COA Region VI Decision No. 2012-021 dated August 28, 2012 is AFFIRMED . [12] COA Proper reiterated the need for the LGU to follow the Personal Services limitation in granting PEI to its employees. Further, COA Proper brushed aside petitioners' claim of good faith since they are presumed to know the relevant provisions of the law. [13] Petitioners moved for the reconsideration of the decision but COA Proper denied the same on 09 March 2015. [14] Issues Petitioners now come before the Court to assail COA Proper's decision, raising the following issues: a) The Commission on Audit gravely erred in disallowing payments made by the Iloilo Provincial Government to its officials and employees for their Productivity Enhancement Incentive for Calendar year 2009 and order the refund of the full amount without considering the amount in excess and the waived items. b) The COA gravely erred in its findings that the officials and employees of Iloilo Provincial Government cannot be considered in goodfaith (sic) when the[y] received the subject incentive. Petitioners assert the legality of the grant of PEI to the officials and employees of the Province of Iloilo by virtue of a validly passed appropriations ordinance. They also claim good faith in the receipt of the benefit to avoid liability for the refund of the disallowed amounts. [16] Respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General, argue that the present petition should be dismissed for being filed out of time. They maintain that payment of PEI to the employees of the Province of Iloilo violated the law and applicable rules and regulations. Lastly, petitioners cannot invoke good faith to avoid the refund of the disallowed amounts since an order of refund is supported by the principle of solutio indebiti , [17] The focal issue in this case is whether the COA committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed decision and resolution. Ruling of the Court The petition lacks merit. Petitioners failed to timely file the petition At the outset, the Court agrees with respondents that the present petition was filed out of time. Rule 64 specifically provides: 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. (Emphasis supplied) Clearly, the thirty-day reglementary period to assail the decision of COA Proper is merely interrupted by the filing of a motion for reconsideration. After r