SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 228548. September 11, 2017.]
JOSEPHINE D. PADILLA-NIEVES, petitioner, vs.ARLINDA M. PAME, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated11 September 2017which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 228548 (Josephine D. Padilla-Nieves v. Arlinda M. Pame)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the September 30, 2016 Decision 1 and December 2, 2016 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 137391 for failure of petitioner Josephine D. Padilla-Nieves (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in affirming the issuances of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon (Ombudsman) finding her liable for Serious Dishonesty, Falsification of Official Documents, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, and imposing upon her the penalty of dismissal from the service with the corresponding accessory penalties.
As correctly ruled by the CA, there was substantial evidence to show that petitioner committed the acts complained of, i.e., making it appear that she reported for work or that she completed eight (8) hours of work even if she did not do so and receiving her full salary therefor, which constitute serious dishonesty, and failing to file leaves of absences during her travels, which amounts to Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. It bears stressing that the foregoing findings are factual in nature, and it is well-settled that findings of fact of administrative bodies, if based on substantial evidence, are controlling on the reviewing authority. It is not for the appellate court to substitute its own judgment for that of the administrative agency on the sufficiency of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. Administrative decisions on matters within their jurisdiction are entitled to respect and can only be set aside on proof of grave abuse of discretion, fraud or error of law, 3 none of which obtains in this case.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 33-51. Penned by Associate Justice Carmelita Salandanan Manahan with Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Franchito N. Diamante concurring.
2.Id. at 53-56.
3.Medina v. Commission on Audit, 567 Phil. 649, 663 (2008).