DECISION NO.

2019-372
August 22, 2019

Subject: Petition for Review of Dr. Edgardo C. Sabitsana, Director IV, et al., all of the Bureau of
Quarantine (BOQ), of Commission on Audit National Government Sector‒Cluster 6
Decision No. 2015-006 dated May 28, 2015 which dismissed the appeal from Notice
of Disallowance (ND) Nos. 11-001-101(2010) dated October 17, 2011, 11-002-
101(2010) dated November 29, 2011, 11-003-101(2010) dated December 9, 2011, in
the total amount of ₱1,087,065.00, for having been filed out of time, and affirmed ND
No. 12-001-10 dated May 22, 2012 amounting to ₱306,575.30 on the excess payment
of hazard pay to BOQ officials and employees

DECISION

FACTS OF THE CASE

Before this Commission is a Petition for Review1 of Dr. Edgardo C. Sabitsana, Director IV, et al., all of the Bureau of
Quarantine (BOQ), of Commission on Audit (COA) National Government Sector (NGS)‒Cluster 6 Decision No. 2015-006 dated
May 28, 2015. The decision dismissed the appeal from Notice of Disallowance (ND) Nos. 11-001-101(2010), 11-002-101(2010),
11-003-101(2010) dated October 17, 2011, November 29, 2011, and December 9, 2011, respectively, in the total amount of
₱1,087,065.00, for having been filed out of time, and affirmed ND No. 12-001-10 dated May 22, 2012 amounting to ₱306,575.30,
on the excess payment of hazard pay to BOQ officials and employees.

The following are the jurisdictional facts:

Date of Filing of Date of Receipt of Date of Filing of

Notice of Date of Appeal before the NGS- Cluster 6 Petition for Review Total No.
Disallowance Receipt of Cluster C-Social Decision before the COA of Days
(ND) Nos./Date ND Services, NGS Commission Proper Elapsed
​(Days Elapsed) (Days Elapsed)
11-001-101(2010) November October 12, 2012 June 15, 2015 December 14, 2015
3 4 5

11, 2011
2
October 17, (334 days) (180 days) 514 days
2011

11-002-101(2010) January 5, October 12, 2012 June 15, 2015 December 14, 2015
7 8 9

November 29, 2012 6

(279 days) (180 days) 459 days
2011

11-003-101 January 24, October 12, 2012 June 15, 2015 December 14, 2015
11 12 13

2012
10
December 9, (261 days) (180 days)
2011 441 days

12-001-101 May 30, October 12, 2012 June 15, 2015 December 14, 2015
15 16 17

2012
14
May 22, 2012 (133 days) (180 days) 313 days

Clearly, the appeal from ND Nos. 11-001-101(2010), 11-002-101(2010), and 11-003-101 was filed beyond the six months
(180 days) reglementary period 18 at the Cluster Director’s (CD) level. This Commission rules that the CD was correct in ruling that
the appeal pertaining to said NDs was filed out of time. On the other hand, the appeal from ND No. 12-001-101 was filed within
the reglementary period before the CD. However, the Petition for Review of the Director’s decision was filed out time at the
Commission Proper level. Thus, the Petition for Review for all the NDs was filed out of time.

The perfection of an appeal within the period and in the manner prescribed by law is jurisdictional and non-compliance
with such legal requirement is fatal and has the effect of rendering the judgment final and executory.19 The limitation on the period
of appeal is not without any reason. They must be strictly followed as they are considered indispensable to forestall or avoid
unreasonable delays in the administration of justice, to ensure an orderly discharge of judicial business, and to put an end to
controversies.20 Although as a general rule, rules of procedure are liberally construed, the provisions with respect to rules on the
manner and periods of perfecting appeals are strictly applied and are only relaxed in very exceptional circumstances on equitable
considerations, which are not present in this case.21

The right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised
only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. Thus, one who seeks to avail of the right to appeal must strictly
comply with the requirements of the rules, and failure to do so leads to the loss of the right to appeal.22

There being no timely appeal taken, the first three NDs appealed from have become final and executory at the CD’s level,
pursuant to Section 22.1 of the Rules and Regulations on the Settlement of Accounts, viz:

A decision of the Commission Proper, Director or Auditor upon any matter within their respective jurisdiction,
if not appealed as herein provided, shall become final and executory.
 Having attained finality, the said NDs are immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified. In the case of FGU
Insurance Corporation (now BPI/MS Insurance Corporation) vs. Regional Trial Court of Makati City,23 the Supreme Court ruled
that:

Under the doctrine of finality of judgment or immutability of judgment, a decision that has acquired finality
becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is
meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and whether it be made by the court that rendered it or
by the Highest Court of the land. Any act which violates this principle must immediately be struck down.

As to ND No. 12-001-101, the petition was filed beyond the reglementary period at the Commission Proper level. Hence,
the ND has likewise become final and executory.

Even if this Commission would set aside the technicalities in the interest of substantial justice, the Petition for Review
relative to ND No.12-001-101 will still be denied for lack of merit.

It is emphasized that the payment of hazard pay benefits has no legal basis because Department of Health (DOH)
Administrative Order (AO) No. 2006-0011 dated May 16, 2006 was declared void in Supreme Court En Banc Resolution No. A.M.
No. 03-9-02 promulgated on November 27, 2008. This Commission holds that Republic Act No. 7305 is the applicable law in the
grant of hazard pay and not DOH AO No. 2006-0011. Thus, the disallowance of the payment of excess hazard pay shall be
sustained and the amount received shall be returned by the petitioners because they have no legal basis to receive it.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review of Dr. Edgardo C. Sabitsana, Director IV, et al., all of the
Bureau of Quarantine (BOQ), of Commission on Audit (COA) National Government Sector‒Cluster 6 Decision No. 2015-006
dated May 28, 2015 is hereby DISMISSED for having been filed out of time. Accordingly, Notice of Disallowance Nos. 11-001-
101(2010) dated October 17, 2011, 11-002- 101(2010) dated November 29, 2011, and 11-002-101 dated December 9, 2011 on the
excess payment of hazard pay benefits to BOQ personnel, in the total amount of ₱1,393,640.30, is FINAL and EXECUTORY.

(SGD.) MICHAEL G. AGUINALDO

Chairperson

(SGD.) JOSE A. FABIA (SGD.) ROLAND C. PONDOC

Commissioner Commissioner

Attested by:

(SGD.) NILDA B. PLARAS

Director IV
Commission Secretariat

Copy furnished:

Mr. Edgardo C. Sabitsana, et al.

Bureau of Quarantine
Port Area, Manila

The Audit Team Leader

The Supervising Auditor
Bureau of Quarantine
Port Area, Manila

The Director
Cluster 6-Health and Science
National Government Sector

The Director
Information Technology Office
Systems and Technical Services Sector

The Assistant Commissioners

National Government Sector
Commission Proper Adjudication and
Secretariat Support Services Sector

All of this Commission

ESZ/EGAT/EEL/RMF/LJL
CP Case No. 2015-0985
CP Case No. 2015-0985

1 Pursuant to Section 2, Rule VII, 2009 Revised Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Audit (COA).
2 As indicated in the proof of service of the ND. Rollo, p. 70.
3 Stamped received on the Appeal Memorandum filed by the appellants. Rollo, p. 90.
4 As admitted by the petitioners in the Petition for Review. Rollo, p. 48.
5 Stamped received by the COA Commission Proper. Rollo, p. 49.
6 As indicated in the proof of service of the face of the ND. Rollo, p. 62.
7 Supra at 3.
8 Supra at 4.
9 Supra at 5.
10 As indicated in the proof of service of the ND. Rollo, p. 56.
11 Supra at 3.
12 Supra at 4.
13 Supra at 5.
14 As indicated in the proof of service of the ND. Rollo, p. 71.
15 Supra at 3.
16 Supra at 4.
17 Supra at 5.
18 An appeal must be filed within six (6) months after the decision after receipt of the decision appealed from.
19 Heirs of Teofilo Gaudiano vs. Constancio Benemerito, et al., G.R. No. 174247, February 21, 2007, citing Cabellan vs. Court of Appeals, 363 Phil. 460, 467 (1999).
20 Heirs of Teofilo Gaudiano vs. Constancio Benemerito, et al., G.R. No. 174247, February 21, 2007, citing Videogram Regulatory Board vs. Court of Appeals, 332 Phil.
820, 828 (1996).
21 Heirs of Teofilo Gaudiano vs. Constancio Benemerito, et al., G.R. No. 174247, February 21, 2007, citing Buenaflor vs. Court of Appeals, 400 Phil. 395, 402-403
(2000).
22 M.A. Santander Construction, Inc. vs. Villanueva, G.R. No. 136477, November 10, 2004.
23 G.R. No. 161282, February 23, 2011.