Rosario v. Chairman of the Commission on Audit
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Fructuosa L. Rosario, a retired Supervising Librarian I from the National Library, claimed entitlement to a terminal pay differential of P7,741.41. This claim was based on her alleged attainment of the rank of Assistant Chief of Division, a position whose salary was increased by Republic Act No. 6410, effective July 1, 1971. She asserted this differential was due for the period October 1, 1971, to June 30, 1972, corresponding to her accumulated leave credits. Procedural History: The Acting Chairman of the Commission on Audit denied Miss Rosario's claim, citing an opinion from the Commissioner of the Budget that her claim lacked legal basis. This decision, communicated in a third indorsement dated September 27, 1973, also directed Miss Rosario and similarly situated employees to refund any salary adjustments received under Republic Act No. 6410 prior to July 1, 1972. Miss Rosario received this decision on November 6, 1973, and filed a request for reconsideration on December 5, 1973. Her request was denied in a letter dated October 29, 1974, which she received on November 22, 1974. The Petition: Miss Rosario filed her notice of appeal with the Commission on Audit on December 20, 1974, thirty-one days after receiving the denial of her reconsideration request. Subsequently, on December 23, 1974, she filed a petition for review and certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Solicitor General moved for dismissal, arguing the petition was filed out of time and that the salary increases under Republic Act No. 6401 were implemented after her retirement. The Court noted that the appeal period should be computed from the receipt of the initial decision, not the denial of reconsideration, and that her appeal was therefore perfected out of time.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for review and certiorari was filed within the reglementary period. Whether Miss Rosario was entitled to terminal pay differential based on the salary increase under Republic Act No. 6410.
Ruling
The appeal is dismissed for not having been perfected within the reglementary period. Dispositive Portion: WHEREFORE, Miss Rosario's appeal is dismissed for not having been perfected within the reglementary period. SO ORDERED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the reglementary period for appeal: The Court reiterated that Section 2 of Commonwealth Act No. 327, the 1973 Constitution (Sec. 2, Art. XII), and Section 1, Rule 44 of the Rules of Court all provide a thirty-day period for appeal from a final decision of the Commission on Audit. The Court clarified that while a motion for reconsideration suspends the running of the thirty-day period, the reglementary period should be computed from the receipt of the original decision, not from the receipt of the resolution denying the motion for reconsideration. The period during which the motion or request for reconsideration was pending should be deducted from the original thirty-day period. Therefore, Miss Rosario's contention that the thirty-day period should be computed from November 22, 1974 (receipt of the denial of reconsideration) was incorrect. She had only one day remaining to file her petition for review after receiving the denial of her reconsideration, as the original thirty-day period commenced upon her receipt of the initial decision on November 6, 1973. The Court noted that she could have filed a petition for extension of time if the remaining period was inadequate, a practice often granted if well-grounded. On the entitlement to terminal pay differential: Although the petition was dismissed on procedural grounds, the Court implicitly affirmed the reasoning of the Commissioner of the Budget and the Acting Chairman of the Commission on Audit that Miss Rosario's claim was devoid of legal sanction. The Solicitor General's comment highlighted that the salary increases under Republic Act No. 6401 were implemented only on July 1, 1972, which was after Miss Rosario's retirement on September 1, 1971. This suggests that the basis for her claim, the increased salary rate, was not yet in effect during the period for which she claimed differential pay.
Main Doctrine
The reglementary period for appeal from a final decision of the Commission on Audit is computed from the receipt of the decision itself, not from the receipt of the resolution denying a motion for reconsideration. The period during which the motion for reconsideration was pending should be deducted from the original reglementary period.