Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
 
 
JEORGE GANANCIAL, MARY JEAN
GANANCIAL and AUREA GESTOSO,
Petitioner

G.R. No. ____________

-versus-

THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (CSC),

Respondent.

x--------------------------------x

PETITION FOR REVIEW

(Rule 45)

Petitioner, by counsel and to this Honorable Court respectfully

alleges:

NATURE OF THE CASE

This is a petition for review on Certiorari pursuant to Rule 45 of the

Rules of Court of the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) of Manila,
FORMER FOURTH DIVISION, entitled “Jeorge Ganancial, Mary
Jean Ganancial and Aurea Gestoso v. The Civil Service Commission
(CSC),” denying the Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the 1997
Rules on Civil Procedure of Jeorge Ganancial, Mary Jean Ganancial
and Aurea Gestoso, herein as Petitioners in CA-G.R. SP. No. 171338,
affirming the Decision of the herein respondent Civil Service
Commission (CSC) dated September 10, 2021, founding petitioners
guilty of two (2) counts of Serious Dishonesty an imposing upon them
the penalty of dismissal from the service with all its accessory
penalties and denying the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the
herein petitioners in its CA Resolution dated April 24, 2023 and duly
received by the herein petitioners on May 14, 2023.

THE PARTIES

Petitioner, Juan De la Cruz, is of legal age, single, and is the

accused in said Criminal Case No. 1234, MTC, Manila, and the
appellant in Criminal Case No. 4321, RTC, Manila. He is represented
in this case by his counsel of record Atty. Crisostomo Ibarra with
office address at 123 Dragon Tower, Ongpin St., Binondo, Manila.
 Private respondent, Gregorio Luna, is of legal age, single and is
the complainant in Criminal Case No. 1234, MTC, and the appellee in
Criminal Case No. 54321, RTC, Manila. He may be served with legal
process through his counsel of record, Atty. Maria Clara De los Santos
with office address at 123 Juan Luna St., Binondo, Manila.

Public Respondent, People of the Philippines, is in charge of the

prosecution of criminal offenses.

TIMESLINESS OF PETITION

On May 15, 2017, petitioner received copy of the decision of the

CA in CA-G.R. SP. No. Xxxxxxxx [“CA Decision”]. A certified true
copy of the said CA decision is attached hereto as Annex “A.”

On May 20, 2017, petitioner filed his motion for reconsideration

of the said CA decision. A certified true copy of the said motion for
reconsideration is attached hereto as Annex “B.”

On May 22, 2017, petitioner received a copy of the decision of

the CA denying said motion for reconsideration. A certified true copy
of said CA decision is attached hereto as Annex “C.”

Petitioner is filing the instant petition for review for Certiorari

with the Supreme Court within the fifteen-day period requirement
from the receipt of said decision. (Annex C).

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND MATTERS INVOLVED

The factual background and proceedings are as follows:

1. On December 1, 2016, Petitioner bought from Private

Respondent 100 boxes of Nutella Hazelnut Spread, 100 boxes of
flour and 100 boxes of sugar and 100 boxes of chocolate powder
to restock his bakery supplies.

2. On December 2, 2016, Private Respondent delivered said

baking supplies at Petitioner’s bakeshop located at Quintin
Paredes St., Binondo, Manila. A receipt was issued and received
by the Petitioner (Attached as Exhibit A in Private Respondent’s
Complaint-Affidavit in the Prosecutor’s Office.) In return,
Petitioner issued 4 post-dated checks, BDO Check No. 123, 124,
125, 126, dated December 9, 2017, December 16, 2017,
December 23, 2016, respectively in the amount of Php 250,000
each (Attached as Exhibit B in Private Respondent’s Complaint-
 Affidavit before the Prosecutor’s Office). The total amount
covered by the 4 checks is Php 1,000,000.00.

3. On January 10, 2017, upon presentment to by the Private

Respondent to the BDO-Ongpin Branch for encashment, the
check was dishonored due to insufficiency of funds (Attached as
Exhibit C in Private Respondent’s Complaint-Affidavit in the
Prosecutor’s Office).

4. On January 11, 2017, Private Respondent visited Petitioner to

claim the One Million Pesos (Php 1,000,000.00) covered by the
checks. Petitioner forgot that he had insufficient funds in his
BDO Account and recalled that it was his Metrobank account
that had sufficient funds. On the same day, Petitioner withdrew
the One Million Pesos (Php 1,000,000.00) from Metrobank-
Ongpin Branch and gave the said amount to Private
Respondent. In a piece of paper, Private respondent
acknowledged the receipt of the money and signed it (Attached
as Exhibit 1 in Petitioner’s Counter-Affidavit in the Prosecutor’s
Office).

5. On January 13, 2017, a demand letter was sent by Private

Respondent to pay the One Million pesos (Attached as Exhibit
D in Private Respondent’s Complaint-Affidavit in the
Prosecutor’s Office). The Petitioner ignored such demand letter
because he already paid the Private Respondent.

6. On January 16, 2017, a complaint was filed by the Private

Respondent against Petitioner before the Prosecutor’s Office of
Manila for violation of BP 22.

7. On January 23, 2017, information was filed before the MTC of

Manila for the violation of BP 22.

8. On February 2, 2017, a decision was rendered by the MTC

finding Petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the
violation of BP 22 and ordered him to pay the sum of One
Million Pesos (Php 1,000,000.00 ) plus legal interest to Private
Respondent.

9. On February 6, 2017, an appeal was made by the Petitioner

before the RTC of Manila and a decision was rendered on May
3, 2017 affirming the decision of the MTC of Manila.

10. On May 15, 2017, petitioner received copy of the decision

of the CA in CA-G.R. SP. No. Xxxxxxxx [“CA Decision”] denying
the petition filed by petitioner
 11. On May 20, 2017, petitioner filed his motion for
reconsideration of the said CA decision. But, on May 22, 2017,
petitioner received a copy of the decision of the CA denying said
motion for reconsideration. The same was denied in toto

ISSUE RAISED

ERRORS COMMITTED BY COURT OF APPEALS

DISCUSSION

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that:

1. The petition for review be given due course

2. That after due proceedings, judgment be rendered in favor of

the Petitioner by setting aside the questioned CA Decision
(Annex “A”), and another one be rendered:

(a) That the Petitioner be absolved from the crime

of violation of BP 22

(b) That the Petitioner be absolved from payment of

One Million Pesos plus legal interests.

Petitioner further prays for such other reliefs as may be just and
equitable.

City of Manila; May 12, 2017.

Atty. Crisostomo Ibarra

Counsel for Petitioner
123 Dragon Tower, Ongpin St., Binondo, Manila
Roll of Attorney No. 12345
IBP No. 67890/1.10.17/City of Manila
PTR No. 112233/1.10.17/City of Manila
MCLE Comp. No. 54321/1.10.17/City of Manila

VERIFICATION & CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

AND VERIFIED STATEMENT OF MATERIAL DATES
 I, Petitioner, of legal age, do hereby state that: I caused this
Petitoon for Review to be prepared; I have read its contents and
affirm that they are true and correct to the best of my own personal
knowledge; I hereby certify that there is no other case commenced or
pending before any court involving the same parties and the same
issue and that, should I learn of such a case, I shall notify the court
within five (5) days from my notice.

I received copy of RTC DECISION on May 3, 2017; and I filed a

Motion for Reconsideration on May 5, 2017; and the Motion for
Reconsideration was denied and I received a copy on May 9, 2017.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this instrument on May 12,

2017.

Juan De la Cruz

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me in the City of Manila on

this day of May 12, 2017, affiant exhibiting before me his Driver’s
License ID no. 12345 issued on January 25, 2017 at the City of
Manila.

Atty. Jose Santiago

Notary Public
Roll of Attorney No. 345
IBP No. 99890/1.10.17/City of Manila
PTR No. 123/1.10.17/City of Manila
MCLE Comp. No. 541/1.10.17/City of Manila

Copy furnished through personal service:

Atty. Maria Clara De los Santos

Counsel for the Private Respondent
123 Juan Luna St., Binondo, Manila

Office of the Solicitor General

134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village,
Makati City,
Court of Appeals, 1st Division
Manila