ZENAIDA URI-MANZANERO, PETITIONER, VS. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, RESPONDENT.

This is a Petition for Review (Rollo, pp. 3-29) filed under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

A perusal of the petition, however, reveals the following defects:

1. The Affidavit of Service (Rollo, p. 42) of the copies of the
Petition to the adverse parties contains a defective jurat as the Notary
Public before whom it was subscribed and sworn to failed to indicate
her notarial commission number, the province or city where she was
commissioned and her office address, pursuant to Section 2 (b) and (c)
of Rule VIII of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice;

2. The Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping
(Rollo, p. 41) contains a defective jurat as it failed to indicate any
competent evidence of the affiant’s identity other than her Community
Tax Certificate, pursuant to A.M. No. 02-8-13SC dated February 19, 2008,
and the Notary Public before whom it was subscribed and sworn to failed
to indicate her notarial commission number, the province or city where
she was commissioned and her office address, pursuant to Section 2 (b)
and (c) of Rule VIII of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice; and

3. The petitioner failed to attach copies of material portions
of the record, which are relevant, pertinent and necessary to support
the allegations in the petition, such as: (a) the Show Cause Order dated
May 9, 2011, issued by the CSC Regional Office No. IV; (b) the
petitioner’s Counter Affidavit dated July 13, 2011; (c) the Formal
Charge filed by the CSCRO No. VI on October 7, 2011, against the
petitioner for Serious Dishonesty, etc.,; (d) the petitioner’s Answer to
the Formal Charge; (e) the Position Papers submitted by both parties
before CSCRO No. VI on August 17, 2012; (f) petitioner’s Motion for
Reconsideration of the aforesaid Decision; (g) CSCRO No. VI’s Resolution
No. 12-00122 dated November 27, 2012 denying the aforementioned Motion
for Reconsideration; (h) petitioner’s Appeal, which was treated as a
Petition for Review, filed before the Civil Service Commission; (i) the
CSC’s Decision No. 13-0888 which affirmed the Decision of the CSCRO No.
VI; and (j) petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration filed before the CSC
assailing CSC Decision No. 13-0888.

Pursuant to Section 7, Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the Petition for Review is hereby DISMISSED outright for being formally defective.

SO ORDERED.

Inting and Galapate-Laguilles,^[*] JJ., concur.

---

^[*] Acting Junior Member per Office Order No. 177-14-RDC dated May 2, 2014.