FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 218062. July 29, 2015.]
JOSE HERTEODELUS B. BAYANA,petitioner,vs. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY HON. PATRICIA STO. TOMAS, CHAIRPERSON OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, AND FSVP BENILDA A. TEJADA, CORPORATE SECRETARY,respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated July 29, 2015 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 218062 (Jose Herteodelus B. Bayana v. Development Bank of the Philippines, represented by Hon. Patricia Sto. Tomas, Chairperson of the Board of Directors, and FSVP Benilda A. Tejada, Corporate Secretary). — The petitioner's motion for an extension of thirty (30) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period.
After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the March 14, 2013 Decision 1 and March 30, 2015 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 02372-MIN for failure of petitioner Jose Herteodelus B. Bayana (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding the finding that he was guilty of gross neglect of duty and, therefore, must be meted out the penalty of dismissal.
As correctly ruled by the CA, sufficient evidence exists in this case showing that petitioner willfully and negligently mishandled the seven (7) multimillion loan accounts to the prejudice of his employer and its clients, which constituted gross neglect of duty, i.e., "the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected." 3 As such, despite the attending mitigating circumstances, the imposition of the maximum penalty of dismissal is warranted in this case. Moreover, findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only respect, but finality when affirmed by the CA. Such findings deserve full respect and, without justifiable reason, ought not to be altered, modified or reversed, 4 as in this case. HEITAD
SO ORDERED."SERENO, C.J., on official leave; PERALTA, J., acting member per S.O. No. 2103 dated July 13, 2015.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 52-60. Penned by Associate Justice Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob with Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla concurring.
2. Id. at 61-74. Penned by Associate Justice Romulo V. Borja with Associate Justices Oscar V. Badelles and Rafael Antonio M. Santos concurring.
3. PNB v. Arcobillas, G.R. No. 179648, August 7, 2013, 703 SCRA 226, 237; citation omitted.
4. Sps. Carpio v. Sebastian, 635 Phil. 1, 10 (2010); citation omitted.