Republic
of the
Supreme
Court
SECOND DIVISION
|
COURT OF APPEALS BY: COC
TERESITA R. MARIGOMEN, Complainant, - versus - ENRIQUE E. MANABAT, JR.,
Security Guard I, Court of Appeals, Respondent. |
A.M.
No. CA-11-24-P
(formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 10-163-CA-P) Present: CARPIO, J.,
Chairperson, BRION, PEREZ, SERENO, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: November
16, 2011 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
BRION, J.:
We resolve the present administrative
complaint filed against Enrique E. Manabat, Jr. (respondent), Security
Guard 1 (SG1) of the Court of Appeals (CA), Manila, for gross
neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service by
the accidental firing of his service pistol inside the CA guardhouse on June 8,
2009.
In an Investigation Report[1]
dated June 15, 2009, Mr. Reynaldo V. Dianco, Chief of the CA Security Services
Unit, informed Hon. Justice Normandie B. Pizarro, Chairperson of the CA
Security and Safety Committee, that at around 8:00 a.m. of June 8, 2009, the
respondent, who was inside the guardhouse, accidentally fired his service
pistol, a 9mm FEG Hungary, while in the process of unloading it for turnover to
SG1 Miguel Tamba, the guard on duty for the next shift. In the same report, Mr.
Dianco recommended that the respondent be dismissed from the service for gross
neglect of duty. The matter was forwarded to the CA Clerk of Court, Atty.
Teresita R. Marigomen, for investigation.[2]
On June 22, 2009, the CA Clerk of
Court filed a formal charge[3]
against the respondent for gross neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the
best interest of the service. The respondent was directed to file a written
answer, under oath, within five (5) days from receipt thereof.
In his verified answer,[4]
the respondent explained that the firing of his service pistol on June 8, 2009
was purely accidental, it was not done with evident bad faith, and it did not
cause undue injury to any party; hence, his dismissal from the service for
gross neglect of duty is unwarranted. He narrated that, to his surprise, the
pistol went off after he removed the magazine and while emptying the chamber
load; that immediately after the incident, he reported the same to the CA Clerk
of Court; and that in turning over the pistol to SG1 Tamba, he observed the
usual and safety procedure of pointing the guns muzzle towards the ground,
particularly to the inner wall of the guardhouse, and at a safe distance from
his co-officer a fact attested to by SG1 Tamba in an affidavit attached to
his answer.[5] As
cause of the accidental discharge, the respondent intimated that his pistol may
have been defective because during their recent firing course at Camp Crame,
service pistols of the model 9mm FEG Hungary used in the shooting exercises
malfunctioned; that the malfunctioning of the 9mm FEG Hungary pistols was made
known to Justice Pizarro; and that their police instructor at Camp Crame
recommended that they no longer use the 9mm FEG Hungary pistols as they may encounter
problems with them in the future. The respondent reiterated these arguments in
the position paper[6] he
subsequently filed with the CA.
After the investigation,
the CA Clerk of Court did not find the respondent guilty of gross neglect of
duty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. However, the
CA Clerk of Court found the respondent liable for simple neglect of duty, and
recommended the penalty of one (1) month and one (1) day suspension without
pay, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same offense would be dealt
with more severely. The CA Clerk of Court forwarded the Investigation Report
and Recommendation[7] to
CA Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr., who adopted the recommended penalty
and forwarded the records of the instant case to this Court.[8]
In an
Indorsement[9]
dated March 24, 2010, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)
required the respondent to file his comment on the formal charge against him
for gross neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
service.
In his
comment,[10]
the respondent stressed that the incident was purely accidental; that he had
complied with the standard procedure in unloading his pistol, but despite this,
the pistol still went off without his fault. For this reason, he argued that
the recommended penalty of dismissal from the service is highly improper and he
prayed that the charges against him be dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.
Also, he related that he had been employed with the CA for eleven (11) years
and that his latest performance rating for the period of January to June 2009
was very satisfactory.
After a
review of the records, the OCA agreed with the CAs finding that the respondent
is guilty of simple neglect of duty. For one, the OCA did not find the elements
of gross negligence present in the case. The OCA, however, could not absolve
the respondent from liability because the latter, by accidentally firing his
service pistol, still failed to exercise the diligence required in the proper
discharge of his functions; that the respondent should have been extra careful
in handling his firearm while turning it over to SG1 Tamba. The OCA belied the
respondents claim that his service pistol was defective for there was evidence
which showed that the exact same service pistol issued to him was in good
condition and has never been reported for any malfunction this fact was
attested to by former SG1 Marcialito Villaflor and SG1 Romeo Pimentel, to whom
the same service pistol had earlier been issued.[11]
Also, the
OCA did not find the respondent liable for the offense of conduct prejudicial
to the best interest of the service because the records do not show that the
respondents negligent act compromised the integrity and efficacy of the
government service.[12]
In its Recommendation[13]
to this Court, the OCA enumerated the previous infractions committed by the
respondent: that in March 1999, the respondent was reprimanded for discourtesy
with stern warning; that in November 2001, he was sternly reprimanded for unprofessional
behavior and acts prejudicial to the service; and that in June 2005, he was
suspended for a month for habitual absenteeism. The OCA, however, noted that
the respondents performance rating for the periods of January to June 2008 and
July to December 2008 were both very satisfactory and that simple neglect of
duty is not one of the offenses for which the respondent was previously found
guilty. Due to these considerations, the OCA agreed with the CA and submitted
that the respondent be suspended for one (1) month and one (1) day, without
pay, and be sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense
shall be dealt with more severely.
We agree with the OCAs
recommendation and find respondent Enrique E. Manabat, Jr. administratively
liable for simple neglect of duty.
The unexpected discharge of a firearm
may occur for a variety of reasons. It can be the result of mechanical failure
such as wear, faulty assembly, damage or faulty design of the firearm, but most
often, undesired discharges result from operator error or due to the
carelessness or ineptness of the person handling the firearm. It is for the
latter reason that our court security personnel are taught the basic rules of
firearm or gun safety in order to prevent incidents of undesired discharges.
To
exculpate himself from liability, the respondent contended that the discharge
might have been caused by a mechanical failure; that his service pistol may
have been defective because 9mm FEG Hungary pistols used during their recent
firing course at
In ruling
out mechanical causes, it can only be concluded that the undesired discharge of
the respondents service pistol was the result of his own negligence; in the
usual course of things, a firearm that is being unloaded should not discharge
if gun safety procedures had been strictly followed. What cannot be denied is
that the gun fired and the firing could not have happened unless there was a
bullet in the guns chamber. Assuming that the respondent did indeed remove the
magazine and did indeed cock the gun to eject whatever bullet that might have
been in the chamber, obviously, he simply cocked the gun and did not visually
examine if the chamber was clear. This is a basic and elementary precaution
that every gun handler, more so a security guard who is provided a gun for his
duties, should know.
The next
question to be resolved is whether the respondents negligence, in causing the
undesired discharge of his service pistol, is gross in nature. We rule in the
negative.
Simple
neglect of duty is defined as the failure of an employee to give proper
attention to a required task or to discharge a duty due to carelessness or
indifference.[14]
On the other hand, gross neglect of duty is characterized by want of even the
slightest care, or by conscious indifference to the consequences, or by
flagrant and palpable breach of duty.[15]
We cannot
consider the respondents negligence as gross in nature because there is
nothing in the records to show that the respondent willfully and intentionally
fired his service pistol. Also, at the time of the incident, the respondent did
observe most of the safety measures required in unloading his firearm. As
attested to by SG1 Tamba who was the lone eyewitness to the incident, the
respondent did point the pistols muzzle towards a safe direction, i.e., to
the ground, at the time it was being unloaded and when it unexpectedly went off
a fact evidenced by the bullet mark on the floor of the guardhouse.[16]
We also
agree with the OCA that the respondent is not liable for conduct prejudicial to
the best interest of the service. Although the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases
in the Civil Service[17]
does not provide for a definition or enumerate acts that constitute such an offense,
we held that conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service refers to
acts or omissions that violate the norm of public accountability and diminish
or tend to diminish the peoples faith in the Judiciary.[18]
Here, we do not find the respondents negligent act to have an adverse
reflection on the Judiciarys integrity.
Under
Section 52, Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
Service,[19]
simple neglect of duty is classified as a less grave offense, punishable by
suspension without pay for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for
the first offense. Considering the respondents performance ratings and that
this is his first offense for simple neglect of duty, we impose upon him the
penalty of suspension in the minimum period.
ACCORDINGLY,
premises considered, respondent Enrique E.
Manabat, Jr., Security Guard I of the Court of Appeals,
Let a copy
of this Resolution be given to the Presiding Justice, Court of Appeals,
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO
D. BRION
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
JOSE Associate
Justice |
MARIA Associate
Justice |
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate
Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 9-10.
[2] Memorandum dated June 17, 2009; id. at 8.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] Letter dated March 12, 2010; id. at 1.
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13] Dated July 21, 2011; id. at 59-65.
[14] Reyes v. Pablico, A.M. No. P-06-2109, November 27, 2006, 508 SCRA 146, 156.
[15] Brucal v. Hon. Desierto, 501 Phil. 453, 465-466 (2005).
[16] Rollo, p. 6.
[17] Promulgated by the Civil Service Commission through Resolution No. 99-1936 dated August 31, 1999 and implemented by CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, series of 1999.
[18] Ito v. De Vera, A.M. No. P-01-1478, December 13, 2006, 511 SCRA 1, 11-12.
[19] Id. at 11.