FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 239144. April 10, 2019.]
ARTURO RIMANDO, petitioner, vs.METRO SAN FERNANDO WATER DISTRICT-LA UNION [MSFWD-LU] AND CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, respondents.
[G.R. No. 239164. April 10, 2019.]
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, petitioner, vs.ARTURO RIMANDO, respondent.
[G.R. No. 239194. April 10, 2019.]
METRO SAN FERNANDO WATER DISTRICT-LA UNION [MSFWD-LU], petitioner, vs.ARTURO RIMANDO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 10, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 239144 (Arturo Rimando v. Metro San Fernando Water District-La Union [MSFWD-LU] and Civil Service Commission); G.R. No. 239164 (Civil Service Commission v. Arturo Rimando); and G.R. No. 239194 (Metro San Fernando Water District-La Union [MSFWD-LU] v. Arturo Rimando)
Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the petitions for review on certiorari in G.R. Nos. 239144, 239164 and 239194 of the August 31, 2017 Decision 1 and April 30, 2018 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 132859, the Court resolves to DENY the petitions for failure of petitioner to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in the challenged decision and resolution as to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction. HTcADC
As correctly ruled by the CA, the clause in the contract with Reduction of Non-Revenue Water (RNRW) states that "[a]ll materials furnished and all work performed under the Contract shall be subject to the inspection of the (LWUA) Engineer. 3 Thus, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) and Metro San Fernando Water District (MSFWD) failed to prove the flagrant and culpable refusal or unwillingness of Rimando to perform his duty, and he cannot be held liable for gross neglect of duty. Nevertheless, Rimando is administratively guilty of simple neglect of duty for his failure to assign one of his subordinates to thoroughly check the materials used in the water filter. This act constitutes as failure to give proper attention to a required task or to discharge a duty due to carelessness or indifference.
Section 52 (B) (1) of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service classifies simple neglect of duty as a less grave offense punishable by one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months suspension for the first offense. Section 54 of the same rules states the medium period of the penalty shall be imposed when there are no mitigating and aggravating circumstances. Thus, the proper penalty imposed should be suspension from service for a period of three (3) months. CAIHTE
Also, pursuant to Rule 45 and other related provisions of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, governing appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court, only petitions which are accompanied by or which strictly comply with the requirements specified therein shall be entertained. On the basis thereof, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petitions for review on certiorari based on the following grounds:
In G.R. No. 239144
(1) for failure of the counsel to indicate in the pleadings filed his contact details pursuant to A.M. No. 07-6-5-SC; and
(2) for lack of proof of service of the petition (e.g., written admission of the party served or affidavit of the party serving together with the registry receipt) on the Court of Appeals pursuant to Sec. 5 (d), Rule 56 and Sec. 13, Rule 13, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended;
(3) for not containing all the certified true copies of the assailed decision and resolution, in violation of Section 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
In G.R. No. 239164
(1) for late payment of sheriff's trust fund per A.M. No. 17-12-09-SC; and
(2) for lack of proof of service of the petition (e.g., written admission of the party served or affidavit of the party serving together with the registry receipt) on the Court of Appeals pursuant to Sec. 5 (d), Rule 56 and Sec. 13, Rule 13, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
WHEREFORE, the August 31, 2017 Decision and the April 30, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 132859 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that the administrative penalty imposed against Arturo Rimando is suspension from the service for a period of three (3) months.
The Office of the Solicitor General's compliance 4 with the Resolution 5 dated September 19, 2018, stating that it has paid the amount of P1,000.00 for sheriff's trust fund as evidenced by thereof attached copy of Official Receipt No. 0225103-SC-EP dated October 3, 2018, is NOTED. aDSIHc
SO ORDERED."Del Castillo, J., on official business. Jardeleza, J., on official leave.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo (G.R. No. 239144), pp. 36-55; penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Francisco with Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Manuel M. Barrios, concurring.
2.Id. at 56-57.
3.Id. at 50.
4.Id. at 161-162.
5.Id. at 158-159.