SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 249390. December 11, 2019.]
POLICE OFFICER 3 MICHAEL Q. ELUMBARING, petitioner, vs.SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF THE EASTERN POLICE DISTRICT, AND NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION-PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated11 December 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 249390 (Police Officer 3 Michael Q. Elumbaring v. Secretary of the Department of Interior and Local Government, National Police Commission, Office of the Chief of the Eastern Police District, and National Police Commission-Philippine National Police)
Petitioner Police Officer 3 Michael Q. Elumbaring's (petitioner) 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 study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the January 18, 2019 Decision 2 and the September 10, 2019 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 156268 for failure of petitioner to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding the dropping of his name from the Philippine National Police's (PNP) roster of personnel, effective September 14, 2011, for having incurred more than thirty (30) calendar days of absences without official leave.
As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioner's continued absences for more than ninety (90) days, or from May 3, 2011 until September 14, 2011, without filing an official leave, warranted the dropping of his name from the rolls of employees, pursuant to Section 107 4 (a) (1), Rule 20 of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, without need of prior notice, in relation to Section 63, 5 Rule XVI of the Omnibus Rules on Leave, as amended by Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular No. 13, Series of 2007. 6 It is settled that findings of fact of quasi-judicial agencies, such as the CSC, are generally accorded respect and even finality if supported by substantial evidence, in recognition of their expertise on the specific matters under their consideration, 7 as in this case.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 11-29.
2.Id. at 33-44. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia with Associate Justices Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. and Jhosep Y. Lopez, concurring.
3.Id. at 46-48.
4. See Section 107 (a) (1), Rule 20 of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
5. See Section 63 of Rule XVI of the Omnibus Rules on Leave, as amended by CSC Memorandum Circular No. 13, Series of 2007.
6. See rollo, pp. 40-42.
7. See Barcelona v. Lim, 734 Phil. 766, 790 (2014), citing Baybay Water District v. COA, 425 Phil. 326, 342 (2002).