G.R. No. L-24957 August 3, 1988
PAULINO V. NERA, petitioner, vs. THE AUDITOR GENERAL, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Paulino V. Nera, a retired lieutenant colonel, applied for retirement gratuity. He claimed differential longevity pay under R.A. No. 1134 , which was denied by the AFP Auditor in a memorandum dated June 18, 1963, on the ground that the law could not apply retroactively to his 1951 retirement. Nera sought reconsideration directly from the General Auditing Office. The Deputy Auditor General denied this request on December 17, 1963, a ruling Nera received on January 3, 1964. Nera filed another request for reconsideration on January 4, 1964, which was denied by letter dated February 10, 1964, received by Nera on February 20, 1964. Seventeen months later, on July 15, 1965, now represented by counsel, Nera again sought reconsideration, which was denied on August 2, 1965, as the decision had become final. Nera subsequently filed this petition for review with the Supreme Court on September 8, 1965.

ISSUE

Whether or not the petition for review from the decision of the Auditor General was filed within the reglementary period.

RULING

No, the petition was filed out of time and must be dismissed. The Court applied the governing procedural laws: Article XI, Section 3 of the 1935 Constitution and its implementing statute, C.A. No. 327 , Section 2, which required an appeal from the Auditor General’s final decision to be taken within thirty days from receipt. Rule 44, Section 1 of the Rules of Court similarly mandated a 30-day period for filing a petition for review with the Supreme Court. The timeline commenced from Nera’s receipt of the denial of his first motion for reconsideration. The Deputy Auditor General’s denial dated February 10, 1964, was received on February 20, 1964. The 30-day reglementary period began on February 21, 1964, and expired on March 22, 1964. The decision became final thereafter. Nera’s filing on September 8, 1965, was thus indisputably late. The Court rejected Nera’s argument that the period should be counted from August 1965 when his counsel received a denial, stating the right to counsel is not indispensable in administrative proceedings absent constitutional or statutory requirement. His earlier, detailed pleadings demonstrated he was capable of protecting his interests. The failure to appeal on time rendered the Auditor General’s decision final and a bar to further review. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition without reaching the merits, under the principle that the laws aid the vigilant.