SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 245340. June 10, 2019.]
MERLINDA R. MARQUESES, petitioner, vs.OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON, JENNIFER A. REYES, JUDITH PARREÑO, LUCY LAISA, RUBEN E. ENICEO, JUAN NOPRADA, ANDY MERCURIO, CECILIA STA. ROMANA, AND OFELIA COBILLA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated10 June 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 245340 (Merlinda R. Marqueses v. Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, Jennifer A. Reyes, Judith Parreño, Lucy Laisa, Ruben E. Eniceo, Juan Noprada, Andy Mercurio, Cecilia Sta. Romana, and Ofelia Cobilla)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the May 16, 2018 Decision 2 and the January 24, 2019 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 140191 for failure of petitioner Merlinda R. Marqueses (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in affirming the public respondent Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon's (OMB) dismissal 4 of the administrative complaint 5 for Grave Misconduct and Abuse of Authority 6 filed against private respondents Jennifer A. Reyes, Judith Parreño, Lucy Laisa, Ruben E. Eniceo, Juan Noprada, Andy Mercurio, Cecilia Sta. Romana, and Ofelia Cobilla (respondents). HTcADC
As correctly ruled by the CA, no grave abuse of discretion is attributable to the OMB for dismissing the administrative complaint for lack of substantive evidence to support it. 7 Notably, the OMB passed upon the material issues and thoroughly explained the factual and legal basis of its findings. 8 Well-settled is the rule that the OMB's factual findings are conclusive and accorded with great weight and respect, if not finality by the courts, 9 as in this case. The CA also correctly held that the act of writing the letter did not constitute misconduct and that petitioner failed to prove the fact of dissemination. 10 Since the administrative charge was not clearly established, the dismissal of the complaint is, therefore, warranted. CAIHTE
SO ORDERED. (REYES, J., JR., J., on leave.)"
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 13-27.
2.Id. at 32-49. Penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando with Associate Justices Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi, concurring.
3.Id. at 52-55.
4. See Decision dated July 3, 2013, approved by Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon Gerard A. Mosquera; id. at 192-203.
5. Not attached to the rollo.
6. See rollo, p. 33.
7. See rollo, pp. 41-42.
8. See id. at 42.
9. See Miro v. Mendoza, 721 Phil. 772, 784 (2013).
10. See rollo, pp. 43-44.