G.R. No. 230355 - SONIA O. MAHINAY, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND ALMA J. GENOTIVA.

Ruling

WHEREFORE , Maria Evelyn D. Larraga is hereby found guilty of the administrative offense of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, and is meted the penalty of six (6) months and one (1) day suspension. [14] (Emphasis in the original) Petitioner and Larraga jointly filed a Motion for Reconsideration. In a Resolution [15] dated April 20, 2012, the CSRO VIII downgraded the offense to Simple Misconduct and decreased the penalty to three months and one day suspension. [16] Aggrieved, petitioner and Larraga jointly filed an appeal [17] before the CSC. In a Decision [18] dated January 28, 2013, the CSC found petitioner liable for the offense of Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of Service and imposed the penalty of dismissal from service. [19] It ruled that the elements of clear intent to violate the law and flagrant disregard of established rules are present in the case. The act of taking the PRC forms and supplies without authority shows her clear intent to violate the law. The element of flagrant disregard of established rules is present when her taking was with intent to gain which was clearly manifested in her act of sending the supplies to PREMPC for the purpose of selling the same to its customers. [20] Citing the case of Geronca v. Magalona , [21] CSC ruled that the grave misconduct need not be related in the performance of her duty, it being sufficient that there was unlawful use of one's station or character. CSC found that petitioner unlawfully used her position as Professional Regulation Officer II when she took the PRC forms. Were it not for her position, she will not have access to these PRC supplies. [22] In a separate Decision dated January 28, 2013, CSC likewise found Larraga guilty of Grave Misconduct and imposed upon her the penalty of dismissal from service. Undeterred, petitioner and Larraga filed a Joint Motion for Reconsideration. [23] In a Resolution [24] dated June 25, 2013, CSC denied petitioners Motion. Similarly, in separate Resolution dated June 25, 2013, CSC likewise denied Larraga's Motion for Reconsideration. [25] On July 18, 2013, petitioner filed a petition for review [26] before the CA. The CA issued a Resolution dated March 25, 2014 requiring petitioner to submit a copy of her petition for review to the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). On May 8, 2014, petitioner manifested her compliance to the said Resolution. On July 21, 2014, the OSG submitted its Comment [27] to the petition for review of petitioner. The CA required the parties to submit their respective memoranda. [28] In a Resolution [29] dated November 14, 2014, the CA noted petitioner's Memorandum with Manifestation and the OSG's Manifestation (In Lieu of Memorandum) and deemed the case submitted for decision. [30] In a Resolution dated November 25, 2014 the CA directed petitioner to submit documents/pleadings that were not included in her petition for review. Thus, on February 20, 2015, petitioner filed a Pa