ROBERTO B. REBLORA, vs. ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 195842 June 18, 2013 Topic: X. Review of Judgments of COMELEC and COA B. Mode of Review (§2) Principle(s): Decisions and resolutions of the COA are reviewable by Supreme Court, not via an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45, but thru a special civil action of certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Section 2 of Rule 64, which implements the mandate of Section 7 of Article IX- A of the Constitution,19 is clear on this: Section 2. Mode of Review.—A judgment or final order or resolution of the Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit may be brought by the aggrieved party to the Supreme Court on certiorari under Rule 65, except as hereinafter provided. The distinction between an appeal under Rule 45 and a special civil action under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 is the difference of one to the other with respect to the permissible scope of inquiry in each. Indeed, by restricting the review of judgments or resolutions of the COA only thru a special civil action for certiorari, the Constitution and the Rules of Court precisely limits the permissible scope of inquiry in such cases only to errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. Hence, unless tainted with grave abuse of discretion, simple errors of judgment committed by the COA cannot be reviewed—even by Supreme Court. LONG DIGEST: Facts: This is an appeal via a Petition for Review on Certiorari, assailing the Decision of the Commission on Audit (COA), which denied the petitioner’s claim for additional retirement benefit. Petitioner is a retired Captain of the Philippine Navy born on May 22, 1944. Prior to entering military service, he rendered civilian government service as a Barrio Development Worker at the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) from 6 January 1969 to 20 July 1974. He entered military service as a Probationary Ensign in the Philippine Navy and was called to active duty effective August 26, 1974. On 1996, the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) officially confirmed the incorporation of petitioner’s civilian government service at the DILG with his length of active service in the military pursuant to Section 3 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1638,9 as amended by PD No. 1650 which provides:
ROBERTO B. REBLORA,vs. ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINESG.R. No.
195842 Ju! 18, 2"1#To$%&'(. R!v%!) o* Ju+,-!.s o* COMELEC /+
COAB. Mode of Review (2)P0%&%$1!2s3' Decisions and resolutions
of the COA are reviewable by u!re"e Court# not via an a!!eal
bycertiorari under Rule $%# but thru a s!ecial civil action of
certiorari under Rule &$ in relationto Rule &% of the Rules
of Court. ection2of Rule&$# whichi"!le"entsthe"andateof
ection'of Article()*Aof theConstitution#+, is clear on this-Section
2. Mode of Review.A judgment or fnal order or resolution of the
Commission onElectionsandtheCommissiononAudit mayerought
ytheaggrieved!artytotheSu!reme Court on certiorari under Rule "#$
e%ce!t as hereinafter !rovided..he distinction between an a!!eal
under Rule $% and a s!ecial civil action under Rule &$
inrelation to Rule &% is the di/erence of one to the other with
res!ect to the !er"issible sco!eof in0uiry in each. (ndeed# by
restrictin1 the review of 2ud1"ents or resolutions of the COAonly
thru a s!ecial civil action for certiorari# the Constitution and
the Rules of Court !reciselyli"its the !er"issible sco!e of in0uiry
in such cases only to errors of 2urisdiction or 1raveabuse of
discretion. 3ence# unless tainted with 1rave abuse of discretion#
si"!le errors of2ud1"ent co""itted by the COA cannot be
reviewed4even by u!re"e Court.5O67 D(78.-F/&.s'.his isana!!eal
viaa9etitionfor ReviewonCertiorari# assailin1theDecisionof
theCo""ission on Audit(COA)#which denied the !etitioner:s clai" for
additionalretire"entbene;t.9etitioner is a retired Ca!tain of the
9hili!!ine 6avy born on May 22# +,$$. 9rior to enterin1"ilitary
service# he rendered civilian 1overn"ent service as a Barrio
Develo!"ent ud1e Advocate7eneral# the !etitioner re0uested
assistance fro" the COA for the collection of his clai"edadditional
retire"ent bene;t..he COA rendered a Decision denyin1 !etitioner:s
clai". COAa1reedwiththe!etitioner that hiscivilianserviceat
theD(57shouldandou1ht tobeincluded as !art of his active service in
the "ilitary for !ur!oses of co"!utin1 his retire"entbene;ts under
9D 6o. +&BC. 3owever# since his civilian service should be
included as !art ofhisactiveserviceinthe"ilitary#
theCOAo!inedthat!etitionershouldalsohavebeenconsidered as
co"!ulsorily retired on 22 May 2??? and not on 22 May 2??B..he COA
eE!lained that as of 22 May 2???# !etitioner has already reached
the a1e of ;fty*siE (%&) with a total of thirty*one (B+) years
in active service# inclusive of his four years in theD(57# which
ful;lled the conditions for co"!ulsory retire"ent under ection %(a)
of 9D 6o.+&BC# as a"ended. Ferily# the COA found that# a!!lyin1
the !rovisions of 9D 6o. +&BC asa"ended# !etitioner wasnot
actuallyunder!aidbut wasrather over!aidhisretire"entbene;t in the
a"ount of 9''#C?'.+&..he !etitioner ;led a "otion for
reconsideration# but the COA re"ained steadfast on theirresolution.
A11rieved# !etitioner 0uestioned the Decision and Resolution of the
COA via the!resent Rule $% !etition before the u!re"e Court.ISS4E'
+.
