FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. Nos. 243910-15. March 27, 2019.]
ZAHARA PENDATUN MAULANA, petitioner, vs.KASMIN M. PANGANSAYAN, PALASAB M. BAYANG, MHARK M. SIOKON, JOENIME B. KAPINA, MARIAM G. KANDA, AND AMIL A. PANGANSAYAN, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 27, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. Nos. 243910-15 — Zahara Pendatun Maulana, Petitioner, v. Kasmin M. Pangansayan, Palasab M. Bayang, Mhark M. Siokon, Joenime B. Kapina, Mariam G. Kanda, and Amil A. Pangansayan, Respondents.
After a careful review of the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Court resolves to DENY the same for: (1) failure to state a material date, i.e., when a motion for reconsideration was filed, in violation of Sections 4 (b) and 5, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court in relation to Section 5 (d), Rule 56 of the said Rules; (2) failure to accompany the petition with clearly legible duplicate originals or certified true copies of the assailed June 18, 2018 Decision, in violation of Section 4 (d), Rule 45 of the Rules of Court in relation to Section 5, Rule 45 and Section 5, Rule 56 of the said Rules; (3) raising a factual issue; and (4) failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 08409-14, committed any reversible error in reversing the Office of the Ombudsman's (OMB) August 15, 2017 Decision.
The instant petition seeks to have this Court review the evidence presented before the OMB concerning respondents' alleged failure to secure the municipal mayor's approval in securing their travel orders. Time and again, this Court has explained that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari. The factual findings of the CA bind this Court when the same are supported by substantial evidence. 1 "[T]he [CA's] reversal or modification of the factual findings of the [OMB] does not automatically mean that it [committed any reversible error]. The [CA], acting as an appellate court, is still a trier of facts." 2 Conversely, this Court is not.
In any case, this Court finds that the CA correctly reversed the OMB's findings and dismissed the administrative charges against the respondents.
Petitioner harps on respondents' alleged liability for securing unauthorized reimbursements, which the latter received as payment for their previous travels for the Sangguniang Bayan. ICHDca
Section 344 of the Local Government Code (LGC) states that "[v]ouchers and payrolls shall be certified to and approved by the head of the department or office who has administrative control of the fund concerned." Here, it is undisputed that the fund where the reimbursements were taken from were those of the Sangguniang Bayan's. 3 It is significant, therefore, to determine who had administrative control over the same. A perusal of Section 445 (a) (1) 4 of the LGC, in relation to our ruling in Atienza v. Villarosa, 5 would show that it is the vice mayor who exercises administrative control over the Sangguniang Bayan's funds as presiding officer thereof. Therefore, the CA correctly relied on the Department of Interior and Local Government's legal opinions, which stated that the approval of the mayor in relation to travel orders chargeable to the Sangguniang Bayan's funds is only ministerial and may be disregarded upon the mayor's unjustified refusal to do so. To insist that respondents never even sought the mayor's approval would require this Court to go into a factual discourse on the matter which, as we have said, is beyond the ambit of the instant petition.
Likewise, petitioner failed to show that respondents were grossly dishonest or that their actions constituted grave misconduct. Dishonesty (defined as "the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud") 6 and grave misconduct (defined as the presence of the "elements of corruption, [a] clear intent to violate the law or [a] flagrant disregard of the established rule[s]") 7 are absent in the present case, as can be culled from the CA's decision. In fact, the appellate court even noted that petitioner "relie[d] on mere conjectures, suppositions, and fail[ed] to substantiate his allegations." 8
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the Decision dated June 18, 2018 and the Resolution dated November 13, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 08409-14.
SO ORDERED." Jardeleza, J., on official business.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Pascual v. Burgos, 776 Phil. 167, 169 (2016), citing Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court and Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Leobrera, 461 Phil. 461, 469 (2003).
2.Id. at 187.
3.Seerollo, p. 42.
4.Section 445. Powers, Duties and Compensation. —
(a) The vice-mayor shall:
(1) Be the presiding officer of the sangguniang bayan and sign all warrants drawn on the municipal treasury for all expenditures appropriated for the operation of the sangguniang bayan;
xxx xxx xxx
5. 497 Phil. 689 (2005).
6.Office of the Ombudsman v. Torres and Torres, 567 Phil. 46, 58 (2008), citing Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. (1990).
7.Imperial, Jr. v. Government Service Insurance System, 674 Phil. 286, 296 (2011), citing Vertudes v. Buenaflor, 514 Phil. 399, 423-424 (2005).
8.Rollo, p. 48-A.