FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 239484. August 15, 2018.]
AMELIA A. HERRERA, petitioner, vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ATTY. JOHN THOMAS ALFEROS III, REMEDIOS A. ASPRER AND EMMA U. FLORES, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 15, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 239484 — Amelia A. Herrera, petitioner, vs. Civil Service Commission, Atty. John Thomas Alferos III, Remedios A. Asprer and Emma U. Flores, respondents.
The Court resolves to GRANT petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time 1 seeking an additional period of thirty (30) days within which to file a Petition for Review on Certiorari counted from the expiration of the reglementary period on June 13, 2018.
Considering the allegations, issues and arguments raised in the Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Court further resolves to DENY the same for: (a) failure to state material dates showing when the assailed decision was received and when a motion for reconsideration was filed, in violation of Section 4, Rule 45, in relation to Section 5, Rule 56, of the Rules of Court; and (b) failure of petitioner to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error as to warrant the Court's exercise of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
Petitioner insists that the complaint filed against her before the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman case) and the case she filed against respondents with the Civil Service Commission (CSC case) could not have been related to each other, considering that the Ombudsman case involved incidents which occurred prior to December 6, 2012 (the date of filing of said case), while the CSC case covered the periods April 2013 to November 2013 for the unapproved Daily Time Records (DTRs) and May 2013 to December 2013 for her placement on inactive status in the payrolls. 2
We agree with the CA's conclusion that the Ombudsman case and the CSC case were indeed related to each other, and allowing the cases to proceed separately would open the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the two tribunals in said cases.
As the CA aptly explained, the Ombudsman case presented legal grounds which would justify the acts complained of in the CSC case, i.e., respondents' refusal to sign petitioner's DTRs and the latter's non-inclusion in the payrolls for the subject periods, viz.:
It, thus, becomes logical that before determining the liability of [respondents] in the CSC case, it must first be established in the Ombudsman case that petitioner is not guilty of the charges imputed against her [which included alleged acts of tardiness, loafing and unauthorized absences]. This is because if she is found guilty in the prior case, then the complaint she filed before the CSC would have no leg to stand on and consequently, no basis to attribute administrative liability against [respondents]. 3 (Emphasis supplied)
Although it is undisputed that the Ombudsman case was filed on December 6, 2012, it appears that the Ombudsman's investigation actually covered the period up to September 2013, given the Position Paper dated September 27, 2013 submitted by respondent Atty. John Thomas Alferos III before the Ombudsman which stated that the acts complained of against petitioner continued up to such period. 4
Given these circumstances, we find no cogent reason to overturn the CA's findings and conclusions.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the March 24, 2017 Decision and the May 17, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 138458.
SO ORDERED." Peralta, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2582 (Revised) dated August 8, 2018; Gesmundo, J., designated as Acting Member per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENAActing Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-6.
2.Id. at 21-23.
3.Id. at 40.
4.Id. at 41.