SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 235848. March 5, 2018.]
MASRISA H. NASSER, petitioner,vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated05 March 2018which reads as follows: HEITAD
"G.R. No. 235848 (Masrisa H. Nasser v. Civil Service Commission)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the petition and AFFIRM the June 9, 2017 Decision 1 and November 22, 2017 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 146380 for failure of petitioner Masrisa H. Nasser (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in finding her administratively liable for Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct and meting upon her the penalty of dismissal from the service.
As correctly ruled by the CA, respondent Civil Service Commission (CSC) did not err in finding petitioner guilty of Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct pursuant to Section 3 (g) of CSC Resolution No. 06-0538, 3 as well as CSC Memorandum Circular No. 15, Series of 1991, 4 as it was shown that she made untruthful statements in her Personal Data Sheet dated March 6, 2006, not to mention that she caused another person to take and pass the March 8, 2001 Career Service Professional Examination on her behalf. Case law states that the proper penalty to be imposed on employees found guilty of an offense of such nature, even if the same was committed at the first instance, is dismissal from the service, 5 as in this case.
Moreover, findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only respect, but finality when affirmed by the CA. Such findings deserve full respect and, without justifiable reason, ought not to be altered, modified or reversed, 6 as in this case.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 28-35. Penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison with Associate Justices Victoria Isabel A. Paredes and Marie Christine B. Azcarraga-Jacob concurring.
2.Id. at 26-27.
3. SEC. 3. Serious Dishonesty. — The presence of any one of the following attendant circumstances in the commission of the dishonest act would constitute Serious Dishonesty:
xxx xxx xxx
g. The dishonest act involves a Civil Service examination, irregularity or fake Civil Service eligibility such as, but not limited to, impersonation, cheating, and use of crib sheets. (Emphasis supplied)
4. In CSC v. Hadji (711 Phil. 376, 383 [2013]), the Court declared that as per CSC Memorandum Circular No. 15, Series of 1991, an act which includes the procurement and/or use of fake/spurious civil service eligibility, the giving of assistance to ensure the commission or procurement of the same, cheating, collusion, impersonation or any other anomalous act which amounts to any violation of the Civil Service examination, has been categorized as a grave offense of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct or Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.
5. See Clavite-Vidal v. Aguam, 689 Phil. 127, 132 (2012).
6.Spouses Carpio v. Sebastian, 635 Phil. 1, 10 (2010); citations omitted.