G.R. No. 252007 - HON. ZALDY UY AMPATUAN, FORMER REGIONAL GOVERNOR, AUTONOMOUS REGION IN MUSLIM MINDANAO, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the [Supplemental MR] and [P]etition for [R]elief from [J]udgment are hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. Accordingly, COA Decision No. 2014-244 dated September 11, 2014 and COA Resolution dated March 9, 2015 which affirmed Special Audit Office (SAO) Decision No. 2013-011 dated September 16, 2013 and SAO [ND] No. ORG-12-002-MDS/LF (08 & 09) dated January 13, 2012 relative to the cash advance of Mr. Adham G. Patadon for the payment of relief goods and office supplies purchased by ARMM from Superama amounting to P79,162,435.00, are FINAL AND EXECUTORY . [21] (Emphases in the original) Unyielding, petitioner filed an Omnibus MR [22] that reiterates his arguments in the Supplemental MR and Petition for Relief from Judgment. The Omnibus MR also sought to clarify if his Petition for Exclusion dated July 8, 2016 was already resolved. In the assailed Resolution [23] dated August 15, 2019, the COA Proper dismissed the Omnibus MR for being a prohibited second MR. Hence, this petition. Petitioner insists that his constitutional right to due process was violated due to the negligence of his counsel. He points out that he was already incarcerated for the "Maguindanao Massacre" when the COA proceedings started; hence, he merely relied upon his counsel, and was not able to personally monitor the status of the case or present his defense. [24] He imputes gross negligence upon his former counsel for filing late pleadings which did not embody his defense. He maintains that he never received a copy of the ND, and that his signatures in the pleadings prepared by his former counsel were either obtained without explanation of its consequences or were mere electronic signatures used without his consent. [25] Hence, he pleads for his case to be fully heard on its merits, arguing that the COA Proper committed grave abuse of discretion in sustaining his liability in the ND when no evidence points to his knowledge of or participation in the disallowed disbursements. The Office of the Solicitor General, for the COA Proper, counters that the Omnibus MR was properly denied because the ND had already attained finality. Petitioner is not entitled to further relief as he was not prevented from taking an appeal by fraud, mistake, or excusable negligence. In any case, petitioner's non-participation in the disbursed transactions cannot release him from liability given the substantial amounts and frequency of cash advances involved, which are demonstrative of his negligence in the management and monitoring of public funds. [26] ISSUE Whether petitioner is entitled to a relief from a final and executory judgment. RULING We find merit in this petition. At the outset, we note that petitioner does not deny that the Appeal to the SAO Director was filed late. However, he disowns such lapse, maintaining that he never received a copy of the ND so the prescriptive period for the filing of appeal has not yet commenced as far as he is concerned. He also insists