SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 249493. November 25, 2019.]
MARITES P. PANTI, petitioner,vs. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM [GSIS] PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND REVIEW COMMITTEE, GSIS PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER, AND THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated25 November 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 249493 (Marites P. Panti v. Government Service Insurance System [GSIS] Performance Evaluation and Review Committee, GSIS President and General Manager, and the Civil Service Commission)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the December 12, 2018 Decision 2 and the August 20, 2019 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 152059 for failure of petitioner Marites P. Panti (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding her unsatisfactory rating for the period of July to December 2009 as evinced in her Individual Performance Appraisal Rating Form. 4 HTcADC
As correctly ruled by the CA, there was substantial evidence to show her unsatisfactory performance, considering: (a) the Government Service Insurance System Performance Evaluation and Review Committee's (GSIS PERC) deliberation, as well as consultations with petitioner's former and current supervisors as a result of her confrontational behavior and unsupportive stance towards her co-employees and superiors; (b) petitioner's consistent low ratings obtained during the three (3) rating periods in the areas of Human Relations, Courtesy and Good Manners; 5(c) the fact that she received a "satisfactory" rating before and after the 2nd semester of 2009 does not guarantee the same performance in the future, stressing that aside from work performance, behavior/attitude and personality are essential factors in arriving at overall semestral rating; and (d) there was a lack of credible evidence on the purported ill-motive on the part of petitioner's raters, given that the presumption of regularity in the performance of her raters' duties prevail over her self-serving assertions. Settled is the rule that findings of fact of quasi-judicial agencies such as the Civil Service Commission (CSC) are generally accorded respect and even finality if supported by substantial evidence, in recognition of their expertise on the specific matters under their consideration, 6 as in this case.
Moreover, petitioner failed to attach copies of the GSIS PERC and CSC Resolutions, which are material portions of the record, pursuant to Section 4, in relation to Section 5, Rule 45 of the Rules Court.
Further, the Court resolves to: (a)GRANT petitioner's motion for extension of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file a petition for review on certiorari; and (b)NOTE petitioner's manifestation dated October 15, 2019, why the docket and other lawful fees and deposit for costs were paid only on October 15, 2019, and not on the date when she filed the petition through registered mail. CAIHTE
SO ORDERED. (REYES, A., Jr., J., on leave. ZALAMEDA, J., designated as Additional Member per Special Order No. 2727 dated October 25, 2019.)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 17-26.
2.Id. at 31-35. Penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez with Associate Justices Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles and Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin, concurring.
3.Id. at 37-39.
4. Not attached to the rollo.
5. See id. at 33.
6. See Barcelona v. Lim, 734 Phil. 766, 790 (2014), citing Baybay Water District v. COA, 425 Phil. 326, 342 (2002).