FACTS:

Fortune Life Insurance Company, Inc. filed a petition seeking reconsideration of the dismissal of its petition for certiorari. The petitioner had executed a memorandum of agreement with the Provincial Government of Antique for life insurance coverage of barangay secretaries, treasurers, and tanods, with the LGU being obligated to pay the premium. However, the Commission on Audit (COA) disallowed the payment for lack of legal basis, and the LGU's appeal was denied. The petitioner then filed a money claim with COA, which was also denied. Subsequently, the petitioner received the COA decision and filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was likewise denied. The petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari, which was dismissed due to late filing, non-submission of proof of service and verified declaration, and failure to demonstrate grave abuse of discretion by the respondents.

The petitioner contends that it had complied with the requirement for proof of service and argues that the fresh period rule applies to the petition. However, the Court denies the motion for reconsideration, stating that the affidavit of service attached to the petition did not include the necessary registry receipts. Additionally, the Court clarifies that the fresh period rule does not apply to a petition for certiorari since there are procedural differences between a petition for review and a petition for certiorari.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the petitioner complied with the rule on proof of service.

2. Whether the fresh period rule under Neypes applies to the petition for certiorari under Rule 64.

RULING:

1. The petitioner did not comply with the rule on proof of service. The affidavit of service attached to the petition for certiorari only contained the cut print-outs of what appeared to be the registry receipt numbers of the registered matters, not the registry receipts themselves. The rule requires the registry receipts to be appended, not their reproductions. The petitioner failed to substantially comply with the rule, thus, there was no proof of service.

2. The fresh period rule under Neypes does not apply to the petition for certiorari under Rule 64. The petitioner argued that the fresh period rule should apply because its Rule 64 petition is akin to a petition for review under Rule 42. However, there is no parity between the two procedures. Rule 42 governs an appeal from the judgment or final order rendered by the Regional Trial Court, while the petition for certiorari under Rule 64 is similar to the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 and is not designed to correct errors of jurisdiction. Therefore, the fresh period rule does not apply to the petition for certiorari under Rule 64.

PRINCIPLES:

• Compliance with the rule on proof of service is mandatory, and failure to submit the required affidavit and registry receipt constitutes no proof of service.

• The fresh period rule under Neypes does not apply to petitions for certiorari under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court.