Anda di halaman 1dari 1

DECISION NO.

2018-065
January 23, 2018

FACTS: This is a Petition for Review,1 filed by Mr. Ebrencio F. Indoyon, Jr., former Municipal
Treasurer, Municipal Government of Lingig, Surigao del Sur, of Commission on Audit (COA)
Regional Office (RO) No. XIII Decision No. 2015-001 dated January 7, 2015, which affirmed
with modification Notice of Charge (NC) No. 2006-001(2004) dated October 4, 2006 .
Petitioner received the subject NC on October 12, 2006, and filed his appeal with the then
Legal and Adjudication Office (LAO) - Local, Legal and Adjudication Sector (LAS), this
Commission, on March 6, 2007. Petitioner received COA RO No. XIII Decision No. 2015-001
on March 18, 2015. Thus, he had until April 23, 2015 to file her Petition for Review.5 He filed
his petition before the Commission Secretary, this Commission on September 22, 2015, beyond
the reglementary period.

The timeliness of the filing of the Petition for Review is summarized as follows:

Date of petitioner’s receipt of NC October 12, 2006

Date of filing an appeal with the then LAO-Local March 6, 2007

Number of days elapsed from receipt of NC up to the filing an appeal with


144 days
LAO-Local

Date of petitioner’s receipt of COA RO No. XIII Decision No. 2015-001 March 18, 2015

Date of filing a Petition to Review before this Commission September 22, 2015

Number of days elapsed from receipt of the RD’s Decision up to the filing
187 days
of a Petition for Review

Total number of days elapsed from petitioner’s receipt of NC up to the


331 days
filing of Petition for Review

ISSUE: Whether the decision can still be appealed


RULING: No. Consequently, the subject NC, as modified by COA RO No. XIII Decision No.
2015-001, had become final and executory.

Basic is the rule that the perfection of an appeal within the statutory or reglementary
period is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional and failure to do so renders the questioned
decision final and executory, and deprives the appellate court or body of jurisdiction to alter the
final judgment, much less to entertain the appeal.9 The stringent rule can be relaxed only when
the demands of substantial justice so warrant.