EN BANC
G.R. No. 194530, July 07, 2020
THE DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, REPRESENTED BY UNDERSECRE TARY RAFAEL E. SEGUIS, FRANKLIN M. EBDALIN, MA. CORAZON YAP-BAHJIN, EVA G. BETITA, JOCELYN BATOON-GARCIA, AND LEO HERRERA-LIM, FOR THEMSELVES AND IN BEHALF OF OTHER DFA PERSONNEL WITH WHOM THEY SHARE A COMMON AND GENERAL INTEREST, Petitioners, v. THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
CAGUIOA, J.:
SECTION 6. Each Commission en banc may promulgate its own rules concerning pleadings and practice before it or before any of its offices. Such rules however shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.The COA explained that there were only two sitting members of the Commission Proper when the Resolution was promulgated. The term of then COA Chairman Guillermo N. Carague had expired and the President had yet to appoint his replacement. Still, the Resolution was promulgated en banc, albeit by only two members of the Commission Proper, since that was the full composition thereof at that time. Additionally, the Constitution could not have intended that the exercise of the authority under Section 6, Article IX-A, should be suspended until such time that the President has filled up the vacated position.12
x x x the Commission Proper resolves, as it is hereby resolved, to authorize the adjudicating bodies/offices of this Commission, in the exercise of its original and appellate jurisdictions, to impose and collect filing fees on the following cases:cralawredThe power of the Commission en banc to promulgate the Resolution is sanctioned by the 1987 Constitution. Section 6, Article IX-A thereof expressly grants each Constitutional Commission en banc to promulgate its own rules concerning pleadings and practice before it or before any of its offices. The Constitution is quick to add, however, that such rules shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.1. Appeals from notices of suspension, disallowance or chargeThe appellant/petitioner/claimant/complainant in any of the above cases shall pay a filing fee, as follows:cralawred
2. Appeals for relief from accountability
3. Money claims, except if the claimant is a government agency
4. Requests for condonationIn addition, a Legal Research Fund of one percent (1%) of the filing fee herein imposed but in no case lower than Ten Pesos shall be collected pursuant to Section 4, Republic Act No. 3870, as amended, and as reiterated under Letter of Instruction No. 1182 dated December 16, 1981.
Amount Involved Filing Fee P1,000,000.00 and below P1,000.00 or 1/10 of 1% (0.1%) of the amount involved in the case whichever is lower Above P1,000,000.00 Additional P1,000.00 for every P1,000,000.00 or a fraction thereof but not to exceed P10,000.00
The fees shall be paid at the Treasury Division, Finance Sector, this Commission, at the same time the pleading is filed in any of the adjudicating bodies/offices of this Commission. For appealed cases emanating from the region, the fee may be paid at the Regional Finance of the nearest COA Regional Office. A copy of the official receipt shall be attached to the pleading otherwise, the adjudicating bodies/offices shall not take action thereon.21
Ballentine's Law Dictionary, Third Edition, 1969, recites, "en banc (French) On the bench. See full bench." Under full bench, we find, "The Court with all the qualified judges sitting in a case, particularly an appellate court." It is to be noted that Ballentine tells us to see full bench but does not define en banc as a full bench. "Words and Phrases" defines "Banc" as follows, "Bench; the place where the court regularly sits; the full court." Banc is defined in Black's Law Dictionary, as follows:cralawredIt is well to note that, in fact, the composition of the Constitutional Commissions regularly comes down to only two at some point by virtue of the Constitution's design of a system of rotational plan or the staggering of terms in the Commission membership. Under this system, the appointment of Commission members subsequent to the original set appointed after the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution shall occur every two years.26 The system has assured that the Commissions are never a composition of one, but are, at the very least, always consisting of two members. This, to the mind of the Court, only goes to show that the situation of a two-member Commission is an expected outcome and it is fair to assume that the Constitution would therefore sanction an act of a two-member Commission as an act of the en banc. To suggest otherwise that there is no en banc if one of the positions is unfilled would be tantamount to paralyzing tie Commissions. This is not a logical intendment of the Constitution."Banc. Bench; the place where a court permanently or regularly sits; the seat of judgment; as banc le roy, the king's bench; banc le common pleas, the bench of common pleas.In 1920, the Supreme Court of Colorado consisted of seven judges. The Constitution provided that the Court may sit en banc or in two or more departments as the court might, from time to time, determine. In speaking of en banc, the Colorado Supreme Court in Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. People, 68 Colo. 487,190 P. 513, March 2, 1920, June 7, 1920, stated, "Under a constitutional provision such as ours, a majority of the members of the court constitute the court en banc, and a majority of the court as thus constituted, of course may decide.* * *" See, F. T. C. v. Flotill Products, Inc., 389 U.S. 179, 88 S.Ct. 401, 19L.Ed.2d 398.
"The full bench, full court. A 'sitting in bane'' is a meeting of all the judges of a court, usually for the purpose of hearing arguments on demurrers, points reserved, motions for new trial, etc., as distinguished from the sitting of a single judge at the assises or at nisi prius and from trials at bar. Cowell."
x x x x
In a per curiam in Jackson v. United Gas Public Service Co., 196 La. 1, 198 So. 633, April 29, 1940, this Court interpreted the above sections as follows:cralawred"This motion by the plaintiffs, appellants, to vacate and set aside the judgments rendered in this case and to restore the case to the calendar of this court is refused on the ground that the judgment is final and the motion is therefore out of order. There is nothing in section 4, 5 or 6 of Article VII of the Constitution or in any other section in the Constitution requiring that all of the seven members of the court shall be present and participate in the hearing and deciding of every case. All that the Constitution requires in that respect is in section 4 of Article VII, declaring that the court shall be composed of seven members, four of whom shall concur to render a judgment when the court is sitting en banc, meaning when the court is not sitting in sections."We find that the above reasoning in the Jackson case and the definitions quoted can be applied herein in determining the number of judges necessary to constitute an en banc sitting of a Court of Appeal. The court cannot sit in panels, divisions, or sections when sitting en banc. We find that it is not necessary that the entire complement of the court-here, six judges-be present or sitting on the bench in order to constitute a sitting en banc. All that is required is a majority of the complement of the court; four judges would constitute a majority of the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Of course, the entire court may sit, and it is possible that an extra judge or lawyer called in by the court to break a deadlock may also sit with the entire court. Herein, the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, sitting en bane with five members present was competent to render judgments in the present controversies. Such judgments, however, had to be rendered by majority vote.25 (Emphasis supplied)
The Rules of Court was promulgated in the exercise of the Court's rule-making power. It is essentially procedural in nature as it does not create, diminish, increase or modify substantive rights. Corollarily, Rule 141 is basically procedural. It does not create or take away a right but simply operates as a means to implement an existing right. In particular, it functions to regulate the procedure of exercising a right of action and enforcing a cause of action. In particular, it pertains to the procedural requirement of paying the prescribed legal fees in the filing of a pleading or any application that initiates an action or proceeding.Moreover, it bears emphasis that the disallowances in this case were the subject of separate AOMs. An AOM is an initiatory step in the investigative audit to determine the propriety of disbursements made.31 In the ordinary course of audit, the Auditor issues an AOM in the proper form, requesting the head of office or his duly authorized representative to submit justification or comment thereon within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the memorandum.32
Clearly, therefore, the payment of legal fees under Rule 141 of the Rules of Court is an integral part of the rules promulgated by this Court pursuant to its rule-making power under Section 5(5), Article VIII of the Constitution. In particular, it is part of the rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure in courts. Indeed, payment of legal (or docket) fees is a jurisdictional requirement. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading but the payment of the prescribed docket fee that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject-matter or nature of the action. Appellate docket and other lawful fees are required to be paid within the same period for taking an appeal. Payment of docket fees in full within the prescribed period is mandatory for the perfection of an appeal. Without such payment, the appellate court does not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action and the decision sought to be appealed from becomes final and executory.30 (Emphasis supplied)
SECTION 5. Payment of Filing Fee. - Every petition/appeal filed before an adjudicating body/office of this Commission pertaining to the cases enumerated below shall be imposed a filing fee equivalent to 1/10 of 1% of the amount involved, but not exceeding P10,000.00:cralawredThus, as applied here, petitioners may include the 39 NDs in one appeal and the single payment of a filing fee corresponding to the then prevailing schedule or the appropriate ceiling in the assailed Resolution should suffice to perfect the appeal.46 In particular, as regards the question of petitioners on whether NDs issued against many employees of one government agency can be paid by the agency in lump sum, subject to the P10,000.00 ceiling, the answer is in the affirmative. Parenthetically, on the legal standing of a government agency, the Court in previous cases has recognized that the burden of proving the validity or legality of the grant of allowance or benefits likewise lies with the government agency or entity granting the allowance or benefit, alongside the employee claiming the same.47 The Court in Philippine Health Insurance Corp. v. Commission on Audit48 explained the legal standing of government agencies in appealing disallowances by the COA in this wise:cralawreda) appeal from audit disallowance/charge
b) appeal from disapproval of request for relief from accountability
c) money claim, except if the claimant is a government agency
d)request for condonation of settled claim or liability except if between government agencies[.] (Emphasis supplied)
In this regard, the Court finds that petitioner PHIC certainly possesses the legal standing to file the instant action. Petitioner comes before the Court invoking its power to fix the compensation of its employees and personnel enunciated under the National Health Insurance Act. Accordingly, when respondent disallowed petitioner's grant of certain allowances in its exercise of said power, it effectively and directly challenged petitioner's authority to grant the same. Thus, petitioner must be granted the opportunity to justify its issuances by presenting the basis on which they were made. As petitioner pointed out, whatever benefit received by the personnel as a consequence of PHIC's exercise of its alleged authority is merely incidental to the main issue, which is the validity of PHIC's grant of allowances and benefits. In fact, in light of numerous disallowances being made by the COA, it is rather typical for a government entity to come before the Court and challenge the COA's decision invalidating such entity's disbursement of funds. The non- participation of the particular employees who actually received the disallowed benefits does not prevent the Court from determining the issue of whether the COA gravely abused its discretion in declaring the entity's issuance as illegal, x x x49All told, the assailed Resolution does not violate a person's right to due process, and correlatively, the Constitutional mandate that free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty. Save for truly indigent litigants, the Constitution does not provide that judicial access must be free at all times or that payment of judicial costs or legal fees as a requirement is an absolute anathema. Thus, provisions in the Rules of Court are in place to address a litigant's indigency and there is no reason why these cannot apply suppletorily in the proceedings before the COA.50
Very truly yours, (Sgd.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 27-44.
2 Id. at 22-23.
3 Id. at 12-21.
4 Id. at 7-11. Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration of COA Decision No. 2009-089.
5 Id at 142-143.
6 Id. at 12.
7 Id. at 32-33, 143. Petitioners also alleged that on December 12, 2008, the Resident Auditor also issued seventeen (17) NDs to the personnel of the Philippine Embassy in Paris, requiring the refund of the total amount of P9,108,031.15 representing the difference between the salaries and allowances paid using the collection rate and the salaries and allowances using the prevailing market rate. Apart from these, NDs were also issued against personnel of the Philippine Embassies in Rome, Seoul, Osal.a. Greece, Berlin, and Tokyo. Id. at 33-34, 144.
8 Id. at 12.
9 Id. at 32, 144.
10 Id. at 12-13.
11 Id. at 15.
12 Id.
13 Id. at 16-17.
14 Id. at 18.
15 Id. at 8-9.
16 Id. at 11.
17 Id. at 9.
18 Id. at 9-10.
19 Id. at 10.
20 Id.
21 Id. at 22-23.
22 696 Phil. 276 (2012).
23 G.R. No. 178083, March 13,2018.
24 242 So. 2d 539 (1970).
25 Id. at 545-546.
26Funa v. COA, 686 Phil. 571, 587 (2012).
27Chua v. The Executive Judge, Metropolitan Trial Court, Manila, 718 Phil. 698, 703 (2013).
28Rollo, p. 22.
29 626 Phil. 93(2010).
30 Id. at 103-104.
31 See Corales v. Republic, 716 Phil. 432, 449 (2013).
32 Id. at 449-450, citing COA Memorandum Circular No. 2002-053.
33 Id.
34 Id. at 450.
35Rollo, p. 18.
36Reyes v. Commission on Elections, 712 Phil. 192, 216 (2013).
37 See Kimberly Clark (Phils.), Inc. v. Facundo, G.R. No. 144885, July 12, 2006 (Unsigned Resolution).
38 2009 COA Revised Rules of Procedure, Rule I, Sec. 4(n).
39 The Court takes notice of numerous petitions from the decisions of the COA Proper where the subjects of the appeals are several NDs contained in a single appeal by one or more petitioners, i.e., Tetangco, Jr. v. Commission on Audit, 810 Phil. 459 (2017); De Jesus v. Commission on Audit, 466 Phil. 912 (2004); Dadole v. Commission on Audit, 441 Phil. 532 (2002).
40 This appears to be the current practice in COA as well. In COA Decision No. 2016-462 (Petition for Review of Mr. Raymundo G. Padrones, Jr., Acting Executive Assistant V, Provinca Government of Palawan, et al, of the Letter dated April 28, 2014 of Regional Director Narcisa T. Marapao, Commission on Audit Regional Office No. IV-B, which was treated as a decision affirming 18 Notices of Disallowance, all dated July 18, 2013, on the various procurements of the province in the total amount of PI 2,075,423.39), 18 NDs covering irregularities in procurement were issued by the Supervising Auditor against the local government officials of the Province of Palawan. In the computation of the filing fees by the COA, through the Regional Director, the aggregate or total amount of the 18 NDs to the tune of P12,075,423.39 was used as the base amount. Petitioners paid P10,000.00 as filing fees, relying on the schedule of filing fees under the 2009 COA Revised Rules of Procedure. The Regional Director denied the appeal for insufficient filing fees, noting that COA Resolution No. 2013-016 was already in effect and the ceiling imposed on filing fees was increased to P20,000.00 The letter of the Regional Director stated:cralawredUnder COA Resolution No. 2013-016 dated August 23, 2013, [the filing fees for the] Appeals from Notice of Disallowance or Charge, Request for [R]elief from Accountability, Condonation and Write-off shall be 1/10 of 1% of the amount involved, provided the total filing fee shall not exceed P20,000, thus, the amount of Ten Thousand pesos (P10,000) you have paid as payment of filing and research fees is insufficient since the amount to be paid is P12,075.42 plus P120.75 Legal Research Fund (1% of the filing fee) totalling P12.196.17. x x xDespite the reply from the Regional Director, the petitioners therein failed to pay the deficiency in the filing fees. Thus, the COA Proper ruled that the Regional Director did not acquire jurisdiction on the appeal of the petitioners. The 18 NDs, sought to be appealed from already became final and executory as provided under Section 8, Rule IV of the 2009 COA Revised Rules of Procedure and Section 22.1 of the Rules and Regulations on Settlement of Accounts.
41 See Fedman Development Corporation v. Agcaoili, 672 Phil. 20, 28 (2011).
42 See Chua v. The Executive Judge, Metropolitan Trial Court, Manila, supra note 27, at 703.
43Rollo, p. 22.
44 See Emnace v. Court of Appeals, et al., 422 Phil. 10
(2001).
45 SUBJECT: Amendment of Commission on Audit Resolution No. 2008-005 dated February 15, 2008 entitled "Imposition and collection of filing fees on cases filed before the Commission on Audit in the exercise of its quasi-judicial function"
x x x x
WHEREAS; the Commission Proper, in its Regular Meeting dated June 11, 2013, resolved to set a cap on filing fees, and at the same time consider that the cap of [P10,000.00] is, by current standards, very low, compared to the amount involved and the required legal work to resolve the case;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Commission Proper resolves to adjust the cap imposed on [filing] fees on the following:
Nature Filing fees Appeals from notices of disallowance or charge, requests for relief from accountability, condonation, and write-off 1/10 of 1% of the amount involved, provided the total filing fee shall not exceed P20,000.00 Money claims and approval of sale 1/10 of 1% of the amount involved, provided the total filing fee shall not exceed P50,000.00, subject to certain exceptions as nay be approved by the Commission Proper
46 See De Zuzuarregui, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 255 Phil. 760 (1989).
47Philippine Health Insurance Corp. v. Commission on Audit, 801 Phil. 427, 447 (2016), citing Maritime Industry Authority v. COA, 745 Phil. 288, 330-331 (2015).
48 Id.
49 Id. at 446-447.
50 The 1997 COA Revised Rules of Procedure, Rule XIV, Sec. 1 provides:RULE XIV
Miscellaneous Provisions
SECTION 1. Supplementary Rules. - In the absence of any applicable provision in these rules, the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court in the Philippines shall be applicable by analogy or in suppletory character and effect.
x x x x