SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 231939. August 30, 2017.]
ANTONIO J. ADAPON, petitioner,vs. THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AND MAYOR PETER R. RUAYA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated30 August 2017which reads as follows: ICHDca
"G.R. No. 231939 (Antonio J. Adapon v. The Civil Service Commission and Mayor Peter R. Ruaya)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the January 29, 2016 Decision 1 and April 24, 2017 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 05252-MIN for failure of petitioner Antonio J. Adapon (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding the ruling of the Civil Service Commission which found him guilty of Insubordination and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.
As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioner is guilty of the following offenses: (a) insubordination due to non-compliance with the express directive of respondent Mayor Peter R. Ruaya dated August 1, 2008 to render full time service as Municipal Planning Development Coordinator (MPDC) of the Municipality of Dapa, Surigao Del Norte, and for tendering his resignation as Acting General Manager of Metro Surigao Water District (MSWD) only on October 16, 2008 or two months after the issuance of said directive; 3 and (b) conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service in failing to perform full time service as MPDC until his resignation as acting general manager of the MSWD, which thus prejudiced his service as MPDC. 4
Well-settled is the rule that the findings of fact of administrative bodies will not be interfered with by the courts in the absence of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the former, 5 as in this case.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 44-55. Penned by Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles with Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Ronaldo B. Martin concurring.
2.Id. at 57-58.
3. Insubordination is defined as a refusal to obey some order, which a superior officer is entitled to give and have obeyed. The term imports a willful or intentional disregard of the lawful and reasonable instructions of the employer. (CSC v. Arandia, 731 Phil. 639, 648 [2014])
4. In Philippine Retirement Authority v. Rupa, this Court elaborated on the specific acts that constitute the grave offense of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, considering that no concrete description is provided under the Civil Service Law and rules. The Court outlined therein following acts: misappropriation of public funds, abandonment of office, failure to report back to work without prior notice, failure to keep in safety public records and property, making false entries in public documents, and falsification of court orders. (See Encinas v. PO1 Agustin, Jr., 709 Phil. 236, 261 (2013). Jurisprudence states that acts may constitute conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service as long as they tarnish the image and integrity of his/her public office (Office of the Ombudsman Field Investigation Office v. Faller, G.R. No. 215994, June 6, 2016, 792 SCRA 361, 374)
5.Encinas v. PO1 Agustin, Jr., 709 Phil. 236, 261 (2013); citation omitted.