Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RUBEN S. GALERO v. CA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	AM No. CA-15-31-P 2015-06-16	COMMITTEE ON SECURITY v. REYNALDO V. DIANCO - CHIEF SECURITY PER CURIAM
SG Catbagan: Sir since ang participation ko lang po ang pag-serve ng stubs wala napo akong kinalaman diyan? J. Pizarro: Of course, you were in charge of the food committee, some of these problems may not have happened if you were more active, do you agree? SG Catbagan: Yes sir. J. Pizarro: Why did you allow people like Ricky Dianco and Sorianosos to be principally in charge, when you should have been the one in charge xxx? SG Catbagan: Sorry po sir, kung di ko nakayanan. Sorry po, sir.[100] Simple neglect of duty is the failure to give proper attention to a task expected from an employee resulting from either carelessness or indifference.[101] In the present case, Catbagan fell short of the reasonable diligence required of him by failing to exercise due care and prudence in handling the fiscal and logistical requirements for the food during the excursion.
	GR No. 185685 2011-01-31	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. NIETO A. RACHO MENDOZA, J.
Unfortunately for Racho, his situation is different. The Court, thus, holds that the CA erred in finding him guilty of simple neglect of duty only. As defined, simple neglect of duty is the failure to give proper attention to a task expected from an employee resulting from either carelessness or indifference.[58] In this case, the discrepancies in the statement of Racho's assets are not the results of mere carelessness. On the contrary, there is substantial evidence pointing to a conclusion that Racho is guilty of dishonesty because of his unmistakable intent to cover up the true source of his questioned bank deposits.
	GR No. 180917 2010-04-23	ATTY. VICENTE E. SALUMBIDES v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN CARPIO MORALES, J.
Simple neglect of duty is defined as the failure to give proper attention to a task expected from an employee resulting from either carelessness or indifference.[37] In the present case, petitioners fell short of the reasonable diligence required of them, for failing to exercise due care and prudence in ascertaining the legal requirements and fiscal soundness of the projects before stamping their imprimatur and giving their advice to their superior.