G.R. No. 255569 - PHILIPPINE HEALTH INSURANCE CORPORATION, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, PHILIPPINE HEALTH INSURANCE CORPORATION EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION, THROUGH ITS LEADERS, LORNA BERNAS, SUSAN G. IDUYAN, ET AL..

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED . Accordingly, ND Nos. 10-001-717(08), 10-002-725(09), 10-003-725(09), and 10-004-725(09) dated [March 12,] 2010, [March 29,] 2010, [April 13,] 2010[,] and [April 21,] 2010, respectively, is hereby AFFIRMED . [5] (Emphasis in the original) In its Decision, the COA-CGS held that the issuance of the NDs was in order as PHIC did not have the authority to grant increases, emoluments, or new allowances without the approval of the President of the Philippines. [6] PHIC received the Decision of the COA-CGS on May 22, 2012. PHIC filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review [7] before the COA on June 26, 2012. On July 13, 2012, PHIC filed its Petition for Review. [8] The Ruling of the COA In its Decision, the COA denied the appeal of PHIC for ND Nos. 10-001-717(08), 10-002-725(09), and 10-003-725(09) for being filed out of time. As to the appeal of the issuance of ND No. 10-004-725(09), the same was denied due to lack of merit as follows: WHEREFORE , premises considered, the Petition for Review of Dr. Eduardo P. Banzon, President and Chief Executive Officer, [PHIC], of [COA-CGS]-A Decision No. 2012-08 dated May 16, 2012 is DENIED . Accordingly, Notice of Disallowance Nos. 10-001-717 (08), 10-002-725 (09), and 10-003-725 (09) dated March 12 and 29, and April 13, 2010, in the total amount of [PHP] 41,566,407.77 are AFFIRMED with FINALITY . ND No. 10-004-725 (09) dated April 21, 2010, on the grant of Shuttle Service Allowance to the officers and employees of PhilHealth in the total amount of [PHP] 2,244,577.49, is DENIED for lack of merit. The total amount of disallowance of [PHP] 43,810,985.26 is hereby AFFIRMED . [9] (Emphasis in the original) The COA found that the Petition for Review, with respect to ND Nos. 10-001-717(08), 10-002-725(09), and 10-003-725(09), was filed beyond the six-month reglementary period. Further, PHIC failed to provide sufficient justification for the belated filing of the Petition for Review. Hence, the COA found that there was no compelling reason to relax the application of its procedural rules. [10] With respect to the issuance of ND No. 10-004-725(09), the COA resolved the same on the merits and found that the disallowance was proper. The COA found that PHIC had no authority to grant additional allowances to its employees and therefore the grant of a shuttle service allowance is prohibited by law. [11] On January 31, 2020, the COA issued a Resolution [12] denying the PHIC's Motion for Reconsideration. Aggrieved, PHIC filed this Petition for Certiorari [13] dated February 14, 2021, though the Petition was only filed on February 26, 2021. [14] The Issue The issue for the Court's consideration is whether the COA gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the Petition for Review of PHIC: with respect to ND Nos. 10-001-717(08), 10-002-725(09), and 10-003-725(09), for being filed out of time; and with respect to ND No. 10-004-725(09) for lack o