SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 229114. January 8, 2018.]
CITY GOVERNMENT OF VALENZUELA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CITY MAYOR REXLON T. GATCHALIAN, petitioner,vs. LAURO L. DAYRIT, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 08 January 2018 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 229114 (City Government of Valenzuela, represented by its City Mayor Rexlon T. Gatchalian v. Lauro L. Dayrit)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the June 27, 2016 Decision 1 and January 6, 2017 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 142632 for failure of petitioner City Government of Valenzuela, represented by its City Mayor Rexlon T. Gatchalian (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in affirming the May 6, 2015 Decision 3 and September 2, 2015 Resolution 4 of the Civil Service Commission (CSC)-National Capital Region, which reinstated respondent Lauro L. Dayrit (respondent) to his position as Utility Foreman.
As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioner's argument that respondent's separation from service was pursuant to Section 93 (b) (2) 5 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS) cannot be given credence because the February 28, 2012 Memorandum 6 of the Human Resource Management Office of the City of Valenzuela clearly indicates that the latter was dropped from the rolls, pursuant to Section 93 (b) (1), 7 not Section 93 (b) (2) of the same RRACCS. As such, notice of his unsatisfactory performance should have been given to respondent no later than 30 days from the end of the semester, with sufficient information as to the basis thereof, which was not complied with in this case. In fact, the July 18, 2011 Memorandum 8 of the Human Resource Management Office of the City of Valenzuela was issued beyond the 30-day period from the end of the evaluation periods, i.e., January 2010 to June 2010 and July 2010 to December 2010.
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. 49-59. Penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon with Associate Justices Elihu A. Ybañez and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes concurring.
2.Id. at 60-61.
3.Id. at 104-108. Signed by Director IV Lydia Alba-Castillo.
4.Id. at 116-118.
5. SEC. 93. Grounds and Procedure for Dropping from the Rolls. —
xxx xxx xxx
b. Unsatisfactory or Poor Performance
xxx xxx xxx
2. An official or employee, who for one evaluation period is rated poor in performance, may be dropped from the rolls after due notice. Due notice shall mean that the officer or employee is informed in writing of the status of his/her performance not later than the fourth (4th) month of that rating period with sufficient warning that failure to improve his/her performance within the remaining period of the semester shall warrant his/her separation from the service. Such notice shall also contain sufficient information which shall enable the official or employee to prepare an explanation.
6.Rollo, p. 71. Signed by City Mayor Sherwin T. Gatchalian.
7. SEC. 93. Grounds and Procedure for Dropping from the Rolls. —
xxx xxx xxx
b. Unsatisfactory or Poor Performance
1. An official or employee who is given two (2) consecutive unsatisfactory ratings may be dropped from the rolls after due notice. Notice shall mean that the officer or employee concerned is informed in writing of his/her unsatisfactory performance for a semester and is sufficiently warned that a succeeding unsatisfactory performance shall warrant his/her separation from the service. Such notice shall be given not later than thirty (30) days from the end of the semester and shall contain sufficient information which shall enable the official or employee to prepare an explanation.
8.Rollo, p. 68. Signed by City Human Resource Management Officer Purificacion E. Reyes.