SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243381. February 11, 2019.]
MARTHA A. PASCUAL, petitioner,vs. ARMANDO S. TAN, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 11 February 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 243381 (Martha A. Pascual v. Armando S. Tan)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the February 6, 2018 Decision 2 and the November 23, 2018 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 144263 for failure of petitioner Martha A. Pascual (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding her administrative liability for Grave Misconduct and Conduct Unbecoming of a Public Official.
As correctly ruled by the CA, factual findings of the Office of the Ombudsman are conclusive when supported by substantial evidence and are accorded great weight and respect, if not finality — especially when affirmed by the CA — due to its special knowledge and expertise on matters within its jurisdiction, 4 as in this case. Petitioner's participation in the direct contracting of the subject firearms amounts to an administrative liability for Grave Misconduct and Conduct Unbecoming of a Public Official, considering that she violated the law and disregarded established rules on the prescribed method of procurement, particularly on public bidding. 5
SO ORDERED." (HERNANDO, J., designated Additional Member per Special Order Nos. 2629 and 2630 dated December 18, 2018.)
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 33-52.
2.Id. at 9-23. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz with Associate Justices Normandie B. Pizarro and Pablito A. Perez, concurring.
3.Id. at 25-29. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz with Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Pablito A. Perez, concurring.
4. See Office of the Ombudsman v. Espina, G.R. No. 213500, March 15, 2017, 820 SCRA 541, 551. See also Miro v. Erederos, 721 Phil. 772, 784 (2013).
5.Roque v. CA, 581 Phil. 623, 638 (2008).