REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT
MANILA

Intramuros Administration Employees

Represented by Vicente O. Santos, Jr,
Petitioner-Appellants,

-Versus- G.R. NO. 250785

The Director
Commission of Audit-
National Government Sector- Cluster 7
Public Works Transport and Energy-
Department of Tourism,
Respondent-Appellees.
x-------------------------------------------------------------------x

COMPLIANCE / MANIFESTATION

PETITIONER, thru counsel and unto this Honorable Court,

respectfully states:

1. On March 5, 2020, petitioner received a Notice of Resolution dated

January 28, 2020 issued by this Honorable Supreme Court, which
quoted hereunder as follows:

“Before acting on the aforesaid Petition for Certiorari under Rule

64 of the Rules of Court dated December 26, 2019 filed by
counsel for petitioner, the Court Resolved to REQUIRE the
petitioner, within five (5) days from notice hereof, to COMPLY
with the following procedural requirements:

(i) requirement to state material dates showing when notice

of judgment was received, when a motion for reconsideration, if
any, was filed, and when notice of the denial thereof was
received, to show that the petition was filed on time pursuant to
Section 5, Rule 64 in relation to Section 3 (2nd par.), Rule 46,
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended;

(ii) requirement to accompany the petition with a clearly

legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the assailed
1
 Decision dated November 9, 2016 of the Commission on Audit
(COA), as required by Section 5, Rule 64, same Rules, it
appearing that the copy attached is a machine copy only;

(iii) requirement to submit proof of authority to cause the

preparation of the petition and to sign for and on behalf of the
petitioner, it appearing that the Special Power of Attorney
executed in favor of Vicente O. Santos, Jr. pertains only to the
filing of petition with the COA;

(iv) requirement to submit proper verification and certification

on non-forum shopping as required by Section 5, Rule 64, in
relation to Sections 4 and 5, Rule 7, same Rules, it appearing
that the affiant therein lacked competent evidence of identity;

(v) requirement to provide competent evidence of identity of

the affiant in the Affidavit of Service pursuant to Sections 2, 6
and 12, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial, as amended, it
appearing that the affiant therein lacked competent evidence of
identity; and

(vi) requirement to submit proper proof of service (e.g., a

written admission of the party served, or an affidavit of the party
serving and registry receipts) of the petition on the adverse
party pursuant to Section 5, Rule 64 in relation to Section 13,
Rule 13, same Rules, it appearing that the Affidavit of Service
was notarized on December 26, 2019 prior to the actual date of
posting of copies of the petition on the respondent on December
27, 2019."

2. Hence, petitioner respectfully submits this Compliance and

Manifestation to comply with the said Resolution dated January
28, 2020.

(i) On the requirement to state

material dates showing when
notice of judgment was received,
when a motion for
reconsideration, if any, was filed,
and when notice of the denial
thereof was received, to show that
the petition was filed on time
pursuant to Section 5, Rule 64 in
relation to Section 3 (2nd par.),
Rule 46, 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, as amended.

2
 3. On November 17, 2016, petitioner received the Notice of
Judgment/Decision dated November 09, 2016 issued by the
Commission on Audit dismissing the Petition for Review filed by
herein petitioner.

4. On December 19, 2016, herein petitioner filed a Motion for

Reconsideration dated December 16, 2016 to the Decision dated
November 9, 2016 with the Commission on Audit.

5. An original received copy of the Motion for Reconsideration dated

December 16, 2016 is hereto attached as Annex “A” to prove the
filing of the said Motion for Reconsideration with the Commission
on Audit.

6. On December 17, 2019, petitioner received the Resolution/Notice

of Denial issued by the Commission on Audit, Commission Proper
(CP) dated November 28, 2019 denying the Motion for
Reconsideration, A Certified True Copy of which is hereto attached
and marked as Annex “B”.

7. That petitioner had five (5) days from December 17, 2019 or until
December 22, 2019 within which to file its Petition for Certiorari
under Rule 64 of the Revised Rules of Court.

8. Considering that December 22, 2019 fell on a Sunday, petitioner,

on December 23, 2019, filed its Motion for Extension with this
Honorable Supreme Court asking for additional five (5) days or
until December 28, 2019 from December 23, 2019 within which to
file its Petition for Certiorari under Rule 64 of the Revised Rules of
Court.

9. On December 27, 2019, petitioner filed its Petition for Certiorari

under Rule 64 of the Revised Rules of Court.

(ii) On the requirement to accompany

the petition with a clearly legible
duplicate original or certified true
copy of the assailed Decision
dated November 9, 2016 of the
Commission on Audit (COA), as
required by Section 5, Rule 64,
same Rules, it appearing that the
copy attached is a machine copy
only.

3
 10. In compliance to the requirement to accompany the petition
with a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the
assailed Decision dated November 9, 2016 of the Commission on
Audit (COA), as required by Section 5, Rule 64, same Rules,
petitioner most respectfully submits a Certified True Copy of the
Decision dated November 9, 2016, hereto attached and marked as
Annex “C”.

(iii) On the requirement to submit

proof of authority to cause the
preparation of the petition and to
sign for and on behalf of the
petitioner, it appearing that the
Special Power of Attorney
executed in favor of Vicente O.
Santos, Jr. pertains only to the
filing of petition with the COA;

11. Petitioner respectfully submits the notarized Special Power of

Attorney dated March 10, 2020, with the competent evidence of
identity of both principal and attorney-in-fact, to prove that herein
petitioner authorized Vicente O. Santos, Jr to file the Petition for
Certiorari under Rule 64 of the Revised Rules of Court with the
Supreme Court, which is hereto attached and marked as Annex
“D”.

(iv) On the requirement to submit

proper verification and
certification on non-forum
shopping as required by Section 5,
Rule 64, in relation to Sections 4
and 5, Rule 7, same Rules, it
appearing that the affiant therein
lacked competent evidence of
identity.

12. Petitioner respectfully submits the notarized proper Verification

and Certification on Non-Forum Shopping as required by Section
5, Rule 64, in relation to Sections 4 and 5, Rule 7, same Rules,
with the competent evidence of identity of the affiant, Vicente O.
Santos, which is hereto attached and marked as Annex “E”.

(v) On the requirement to provide

competent evidence of identity of

4
 the affiant in the Affidavit of
Service pursuant to Sections 2, 6
and 12, Rule II of the 2004 Rules
on Notarial, as amended, it
appearing that the affiant therein
lacked competent evidence of
identity.

(vi) On the requirement to submit

proper proof of service (e.g., a
written admission of the party
served, or an affidavit of the party
serving and registry receipts) of
the petition on the adverse party
pursuant to Section 5, Rule 64 in
relation to Section 13, Rule 13,
same Rules, it appearing that the
Affidavit of Service was notarized
on December 26, 2019 prior to the
actual date of posting of copies of
the petition on the respondent on
December 27, 2019.

13. Petitioner respectfully submits the Affidavit of Service of Vicente

O. Santos, Jr with the Registry Receipts Numbers (original copies
of the said registry receipts were already submitted to this
Honorable Supreme Court on December 27, 2019), and with the
competent evidence of identity of the Affiant, to prove proper
service of the copy of the Petition for Certiorari to the Commission
on Audit (COA) and to the Audit Team Leader Both of Intramuros
Administration pursuant to Section 5, Rule 64 in relation to Section
13, Rule 13, same Rules, copy of which is hereto attached and
marked as Annex “F”.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this

Honorable Supreme Court that the instant Compliance and Manifestation
be NOTED and ADMITTED.

Other reliefs, just and equitable under the premises are likewise
prayed for.

Paranaque City for the City of Manila, March 10, 2020.

5
 COS GUEVARRA AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE
Counsel for Petitioner
Unit 201 Dona Eusebia Rodriguez Bldg.
0611 Quirino Avenue, Paranaque City
Mobile No. 09989984009

ATTY. MELANIE OBRIQUE-GUEVARRA

IBP No. 114653; 01-28-2020; Pasay City
PTR No. 2286254; 01-24-2020; Parañaque City
Roll No. 56511
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0021669A

EXPLANATION
(Pursuant to Sec. 13, Rule 11, Rules of Court)

Due to time constraints, distance, and lack of personnel to effect

personal service, copies of the foregoing Manifestation/Compliance are
served by way of registered mail.

ATTY. MELANIE OBRIQUE-GUEVARRA

Copy Furnished:

Commission on Audit-National Government

Commonwealth Avenue
Quezon City