SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 225616. September 28, 2016.]
HONORABLE SHERWIN T. GATCHALIAN, FORMER MAYOR OF VALENZUELA CITY, petitioner, vs. EMMA C. LONGOS, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 28 September 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 225616 — Honorable Sherwin T. Gatchalian, former Mayor of Valenzuela City vs. Emma C. Longos
After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolved to DENY the Petition for Review on Certiorari for failure of the petitioner to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 131536 committed any reversible error in affirming with modification the Civil Service Commission's (CSC) April 16, 2013 Decision (docketed as 130377) and August 6, 2013 Resolution (docketed as 1301837) finding him guilty of indirect contempt.
The CSC was correct in holding that when it denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration in CSC Resolution No. 10-0183 dated January 13, 2010, CSC Resolution No. 09-1259 has already become executory despite the elevation of the case before the CA. Furthermore, as correctly reasoned by the CA, the enforcement of CSC Resolution Nos. 09-1259 and 10-0183 had become imperative since no injunction was obtained in the appellate court. Yet, petitioner did not enforce these resolutions and deliberately waited for the judgment of the appellate court.
The Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, 1 applicable during the time of the controversy, provides that the pendency of the petition for review shall not stay the execution of the CSC decision. Thus:
Section 80. Execution of Decision. — The decisions of the CSC Proper or its Regional Offices shall be immediately executory after fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof, unless a motion for reconsideration is seasonably filed in which case the execution of the decision shall be held in abeyance.
Section 82. Effect of Pendency of Petition for Review/Certiorari with the Court. — The filing and pendency of a petition for review with the Court of Appeals or certiorari with the Supreme Court shall not stop the execution of the final decision of the CSC unless the Court issues a restraining order or an injunction.
Also, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court states:
Sec. 12. Effect of appeal. — The appeal shall not stay the award, judgment, final order or resolution sought to be reviewed unless the Court of Appeals shall direct otherwise upon such terms as it may deem just.
Simply, by his non-enforcement of the CSC Resolutions, petitioner became guilty of indirect contempt as provided under the Revised Rules on Contempt. 2
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolved to AFFIRM the assailed September 23, 2015 Decision and June 30, 2016 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 131536. CcSTHI
Petitioner's Ex-Parte Manifestation dated September 1, 2016 is NOTED.
SO ORDERED.(Carpio, J., on official leave; Brion, J., designated as Acting Chairperson per S.O. No. 2374 dated September 14, 2016)."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Now the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS).
2. Section 4. Punishment, if found guilty. — If the respondent is adjudged guilty of indirect contempt committed against the Commission, he/she may be punished by a fine of One Thousand (P1,000.00) Pesos per day for every act of indirect contempt. Each day of defiance of, or disobedience to, or non-enforcement of a final order, resolution, decision, ruling, injunction or processes, shall constitute an indirect contempt of the Commission. . . . N.B. This provision is now provided under Section 76, Rule 15 of the RRACCS.