Lawyerly

GR No. 201830

2015-11-10

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

While there is no concrete description of what specific acts constitute the offense of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service under the civil service law and rules, it has been jurisprudentially held to pertain to acts that tarnish the image and integrity of the public office, even if it not be related or connected to the public officer's function.[46] Among others, the Court has considered the following acts or omissions such as: misappropriation of public funds, abandonment of office, failure to report back to work without prior notice, failure to safe keep public records and property, making false entries in public documents, and falsification of court orders.[47]

GR No. 179648

2013-08-07

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. MARY SHEILA ARCOBILLAS

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Taking into consideration the circumstances attendant to Arcobillas's infraction, the NLRC correctly affirmed the Labor Arbiter's finding that there was no sufficient basis to hold her guilty of gross and habitual neglect of duty which would justify her termination from employment. To warrant removal from service, the negligence should be gross and habitual.[31] Although it was her second time to commit misposting (i.e., the first misposting was in 1995 while the second misposting was committed in 1998), Arcobillas's act cannot be considered as gross as to warrant her termination from employment. Gross neglect of duty "denotes a flagrant and culpable refusal or unwillingness of a person to perform a duty."[32] It "refers to negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected."[33] As aptly held by the labor tribunals, the misposting was not deliberately done as to constitute as gross negligence. Rather, it was a case of simple neglect brought about by carelessness which, as satisfactorily explained by Arcobillas, was the effect of her heavy workload that day and the headache she was experiencing.

GR No. 154083

2013-02-27

OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. SAMSON DE LEON

BERSAMIN, J.

Gross neglect of duty or gross negligence "refers to negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, or by acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but wilfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to the consequences, insofar as other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care that even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to give to their own property."[22] It denotes a flagrant and culpable refusal or unwillingness of a person to perform a duty.[23] In cases involving public officials, gross negligence occurs when a breach of duty is flagrant and palpable.[24]

GR No. 191218

2011-05-30

GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. ARWIN T. MAYORDOMO

MENDOZA, J.

Accordingly, the complained acts of respondent Mayordomo constitute the administrative offense of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, which need not be related to or connected with the public officer's official functions. As long as the questioned conduct tarnishes the image and integrity of his/her public office, the corresponding penalty may be meted on the erring public officer or employee.[44] Under the Civil Service law and rules, there is no concrete description of what specific acts constitute the grave offense of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. Jurisprudence, however, is instructive on this point. The Court has considered the following acts or omissions, inter alia, as Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service: misappropriation of public funds, abandonment of office, failure to report back to work without prior notice, failure to safe keep public records and property, making false entries in public documents and falsification of court orders.[45] The Court also considered the following acts as conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, to wit: a Judge's act of brandishing a gun and threatening the complainants during a traffic altercation;a court interpreter's participation in the execution of a document conveying complainant's property which resulted in a quarrel in the latter's family.[46]

AM No. P-06-2264

2009-09-29

ATTY. LELU P. CONTRERAS v. TERESITA O. MONGE

CORONA, J.

Simple neglect of duty is the failure of an employee to give attention to a task expected of him and signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference.[16] It has been consistently held that mere delay in the performance of one's function is considered as simple neglect of duty.[17] It is a less grave offense punishable by suspension without pay for one month and one day to six months.[18]

AM No. P-07-2359

2008-08-11

JUDGE OFELIA CALO v. RICARDO L. DIZON

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

By his actuations, Sheriff Dizon displayed conduct short of the stringent standards required of Court employees. He is guilty of simple neglect of duty, which has been defined as the failure of an employee to give one's attention to a task expected of him, and signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference.[23] Under Section 52(B)(1) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, simple neglect of duty is a less grave offense punishable by suspension from office for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense, and dismissal for the second offense.

AM NO. P-01-1478

2006-12-13

MARY ANN C. ITO v. ERIC B. DE VERA

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

2nd offense Dismissal The Civil Service law and rules, however, do not make a concrete description of what specific acts constitute such offense.[15] Our jurisprudence, though, is instructive on this point. We have considered the following acts or omissions, inter alia, as conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service: misappropriation of public funds, abandonment of office, failure to report back to work without prior notice,[16] failure to safe keep public records and property,[17] and making false entries in public documents and falsification of court orders.[18] Undoubtedly, these acts or omissions, like respondent's conduct, violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or tend to diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary, thereby prejudicing the best interest of the administration of justice.

GR NO. 169029

2006-08-22

OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. ROGELIO Q. TONGSON

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Under the Civil Service law and rules, there is no concrete description of what specific acts constitute the grave offense of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.[60] Considering all the cogent facts and circumstances obtaining in this case, including the mitigating circumstances, we find and so resolve that the respondents are guilty of simple neglect of duty, a less grave offense punishable by suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first infraction. The failure to use reasonable diligence in the performance of officially-designated duties has been characterized as simple neglect of duty.[61]

AM NO. P-05-2035

2006-07-31

ATTY. ALEXANDER L. BANSIL v. NELSON DE LEON

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Thus, respondent Sheriff's failure to make a return of the writ of execution constitutes simple neglect of duty, which has been defined as the failure of an employee to give one's attention to a task expected of him, and signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference.[16] Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular No. 19 classifies simple neglect of duty 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.[17]

AM NO. P-04-1786

2006-02-13

ADELAIDA ESCOBAR VDA. DE LOPEZ v. ATTY. ANALIZA M. LUNA

PUNO, J.

The failure to issue and implement a writ of execution in appropriate cases may be classified as simple neglect of duty which has been defined as the failure of an employee to give one's attention to a task expected of him. It signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference.[47] It is censurable under the Civil Service Rules. Under Section 52 B 1 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, simple neglect of duty is a less grave offense punishable by suspension from office for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense, and dismissal for the second offense.

AM NO. 2005-08-SC

2005-12-09

SAMUEL R. RUÑEZ v. MARYBETH V. JURADO

AZCUNA, J.

The Court does not agree that the acts or omission of Dr. Jurado amount to simple neglect of duty. Simple neglect of duty is defined as failure to give proper attention to a task expected of an employee resulting from either carelessness or indifference[4] or signifies a disregard of duty resulting from carelessness or indifference.[5] In Philippine Retirement Authority,[6] it was stated, "The Court has decided the following, inter alia, as constituting the less grave offense of Simple Neglect of Duty: delay in the transmittal of court records, delay in responding to written queries, and delay of more than one (1) year and seven (7) months in furnishing a party with a copy of the court's decision." In all the instances cited by the Court, respondents had the duty or were expected to do certain acts which they failed to do. How do we determine what acts are expected of Dr. Jurado? Atty. Candelaria's report cites the applicable yardstick: a physician or surgeon is expected to apply in his practice of medicine that degree of care and skill which is ordinarily employed by the profession, generally, and under similar conditions.[7] Therefore, to find Dr. Jurado liable for simple neglect of duty the Court has to be convinced that those in the medical profession were also expected to act in the manner illustrated by Atty. Candelaria, i.e., to exert all efforts to determine the whereabouts of Ruñez, Sr., inform his relatives or turn his case over to a doctor who was available after office hours.

AM No. P-03-1676

2005-07-15

RAMON REYES v. BENJAMIN L. CABUSAO

CALLEJO, SR., J.

It is clear that by his actuations, the respondent Sheriff displayed conduct short of the stringent standards required of Court employees. He is guilty of simple neglect of duty, which has been defined as the failure of an employee to give one's attention to a task expected of him, and signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference.[11] Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 19 classifies simple neglect of duty 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.[12]

AM NO. P-03-1676

2005-06-15

RAMON REYES v. BENJAMIN L. CABUSAO

CALLEJO, SR., J.

It is clear that by his actuations, the respondent Sheriff displayed conduct short of the stringent standards required of Court employees. He is guilty of simple neglect of duty, which has been defined as the failure of an employee to give one's attention to a task expected of him, and signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference.[11] Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 19 classifies simple neglect of duty 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.[12]

AM No. MTJ-02-1438

2004-01-22

EXECUTIVE JUDGE HENRY B. BASILIA v. JUDGE AMADO L. BECAMON

QUISUMBING, J.

OCA recommended the penalty of fine in the amount of P5,000 each for respondents Lolita Delos Reyes and Eddie Delos Reyes. But this is not in accord with the law now. Mere delay in the performance of one's function has been consistently considered as simple neglect of duty, a less grave offense, punishable by suspension without pay for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months under Civil Service Rules.[38] In this case, even if we accept that the penalty be in form of a fine, we believe such fine should be equivalent to their pay for one (1) month and one (1) day insofar as respondents Clerk of Court Lolita Delos Reyes and Process Server Eddie Delos Reyes are concerned.

AM No. MTJ-04-1518

2004-01-15

ATTYS. VILMA HILDA D. VILLANUEVA-FABELLA v. JUDGE RALPH S. LEE

PANGANIBAN, J.

Applying the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,[87] we find respondent sheriff guilty of simple neglect of duty for violating Section 7(b) of Rule 57 of the Rules of Court. Simple neglect of duty is the "failure x x x to give proper attention to a task expected"[88] of an employee, thus signifying a "disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference."[89] Classified as a less grave offense, it is punishable by a suspension of one month and one day to six months. Considering that the failure of respondent sheriff to fulfill his duty seems to be his first infraction during his stint in the judiciary, the Court considers the recommended sanction appropriate.

AM OCA No. P-02-1570

2002-04-03

ATTY. SAMSON DAJAO v. FRANKLIN LLUCH

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Considering the circumstances surrounding this case, we find respondent liable for simple neglect of duty. Simple neglect of duty is the failure of an employee to give proper attention to a task expected of him, signifying "disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference."[11] Under Section 52, Rule IV of the Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999, simple neglect of duty, if committed for the first time, as in this case, is punishable by suspension of 1 month and 1 day to 6 months.

	GR No. 201830 2015-11-10	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. ROGER F. BORJA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
While there is no concrete description of what specific acts constitute the offense of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service under the civil service law and rules, it has been jurisprudentially held to pertain to acts that tarnish the image and integrity of the public office, even if it not be related or connected to the public officer's function.[46] Among others, the Court has considered the following acts or omissions such as: misappropriation of public funds, abandonment of office, failure to report back to work without prior notice, failure to safe keep public records and property, making false entries in public documents, and falsification of court orders.[47]
	GR No. 179648 2013-08-07	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. MARY SHEILA ARCOBILLAS DEL CASTILLO, J.
Taking into consideration the circumstances attendant to Arcobillas's infraction, the NLRC correctly affirmed the Labor Arbiter's finding that there was no sufficient basis to hold her guilty of gross and habitual neglect of duty which would justify her termination from employment. To warrant removal from service, the negligence should be gross and habitual.[31] Although it was her second time to commit misposting (i.e., the first misposting was in 1995 while the second misposting was committed in 1998), Arcobillas's act cannot be considered as gross as to warrant her termination from employment. Gross neglect of duty "denotes a flagrant and culpable refusal or unwillingness of a person to perform a duty."[32] It "refers to negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected."[33] As aptly held by the labor tribunals, the misposting was not deliberately done as to constitute as gross negligence. Rather, it was a case of simple neglect brought about by carelessness which, as satisfactorily explained by Arcobillas, was the effect of her heavy workload that day and the headache she was experiencing.
	GR No. 154083 2013-02-27	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. SAMSON DE LEON BERSAMIN, J.
Gross neglect of duty or gross negligence "refers to negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, or by acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but wilfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to the consequences, insofar as other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care that even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to give to their own property."[22] It denotes a flagrant and culpable refusal or unwillingness of a person to perform a duty.[23] In cases involving public officials, gross negligence occurs when a breach of duty is flagrant and palpable.[24]
	GR No. 191218 2011-05-30	GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. ARWIN T. MAYORDOMO MENDOZA, J.
Accordingly, the complained acts of respondent Mayordomo constitute the administrative offense of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, which need not be related to or connected with the public officer's official functions. As long as the questioned conduct tarnishes the image and integrity of his/her public office, the corresponding penalty may be meted on the erring public officer or employee.[44] Under the Civil Service law and rules, there is no concrete description of what specific acts constitute the grave offense of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. Jurisprudence, however, is instructive on this point. The Court has considered the following acts or omissions, inter alia, as Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service: misappropriation of public funds, abandonment of office, failure to report back to work without prior notice, failure to safe keep public records and property, making false entries in public documents and falsification of court orders.[45] The Court also considered the following acts as conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, to wit: a Judge's act of brandishing a gun and threatening the complainants during a traffic altercation;a court interpreter's participation in the execution of a document conveying complainant's property which resulted in a quarrel in the latter's family.[46]
	AM No. P-06-2264 2009-09-29	ATTY. LELU P. CONTRERAS v. TERESITA O. MONGE CORONA, J.
Simple neglect of duty is the failure of an employee to give attention to a task expected of him and signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference.[16] It has been consistently held that mere delay in the performance of one's function is considered as simple neglect of duty.[17] It is a less grave offense punishable by suspension without pay for one month and one day to six months.[18]
	AM No. P-07-2359 2008-08-11	JUDGE OFELIA CALO v. RICARDO L. DIZON CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
By his actuations, Sheriff Dizon displayed conduct short of the stringent standards required of Court employees. He is guilty of simple neglect of duty, which has been defined as the failure of an employee to give one's attention to a task expected of him, and signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference.[23] Under Section 52(B)(1) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, simple neglect of duty is a less grave offense punishable by suspension from office for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense, and dismissal for the second offense.
	AM NO. P-01-1478 2006-12-13	MARY ANN C. ITO v. ERIC B. DE VERA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
2nd offense Dismissal The Civil Service law and rules, however, do not make a concrete description of what specific acts constitute such offense.[15] Our jurisprudence, though, is instructive on this point. We have considered the following acts or omissions, inter alia, as conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service: misappropriation of public funds, abandonment of office, failure to report back to work without prior notice,[16] failure to safe keep public records and property,[17] and making false entries in public documents and falsification of court orders.[18] Undoubtedly, these acts or omissions, like respondent's conduct, violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or tend to diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary, thereby prejudicing the best interest of the administration of justice.
	GR NO. 169029 2006-08-22	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. ROGELIO Q. TONGSON CALLEJO, SR., J.
Under the Civil Service law and rules, there is no concrete description of what specific acts constitute the grave offense of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.[60] Considering all the cogent facts and circumstances obtaining in this case, including the mitigating circumstances, we find and so resolve that the respondents are guilty of simple neglect of duty, a less grave offense punishable by suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first infraction. The failure to use reasonable diligence in the performance of officially-designated duties has been characterized as simple neglect of duty.[61]
	AM NO. P-05-2035 2006-07-31	ATTY. ALEXANDER L. BANSIL v. NELSON DE LEON CALLEJO, SR., J.
Thus, respondent Sheriff's failure to make a return of the writ of execution constitutes simple neglect of duty, which has been defined as the failure of an employee to give one's attention to a task expected of him, and signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference.[16] Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular No. 19 classifies simple neglect of duty 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.[17]
	AM NO. P-04-1786 2006-02-13	ADELAIDA ESCOBAR VDA. DE LOPEZ v. ATTY. ANALIZA M. LUNA PUNO, J.
The failure to issue and implement a writ of execution in appropriate cases may be classified as simple neglect of duty which has been defined as the failure of an employee to give one's attention to a task expected of him. It signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference.[47] It is censurable under the Civil Service Rules. Under Section 52 B 1 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, simple neglect of duty is a less grave offense punishable by suspension from office for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense, and dismissal for the second offense.
	AM NO. 2005-08-SC 2005-12-09	SAMUEL R. RUÑEZ v. MARYBETH V. JURADO AZCUNA, J.
The Court does not agree that the acts or omission of Dr. Jurado amount to simple neglect of duty. Simple neglect of duty is defined as failure to give proper attention to a task expected of an employee resulting from either carelessness or indifference[4] or signifies a disregard of duty resulting from carelessness or indifference.[5] In Philippine Retirement Authority,[6] it was stated, "The Court has decided the following, inter alia, as constituting the less grave offense of Simple Neglect of Duty: delay in the transmittal of court records, delay in responding to written queries, and delay of more than one (1) year and seven (7) months in furnishing a party with a copy of the court's decision." In all the instances cited by the Court, respondents had the duty or were expected to do certain acts which they failed to do. How do we determine what acts are expected of Dr. Jurado? Atty. Candelaria's report cites the applicable yardstick: a physician or surgeon is expected to apply in his practice of medicine that degree of care and skill which is ordinarily employed by the profession, generally, and under similar conditions.[7] Therefore, to find Dr. Jurado liable for simple neglect of duty the Court has to be convinced that those in the medical profession were also expected to act in the manner illustrated by Atty. Candelaria, i.e., to exert all efforts to determine the whereabouts of Ruñez, Sr., inform his relatives or turn his case over to a doctor who was available after office hours.
	AM No. P-03-1676 2005-07-15	RAMON REYES v. BENJAMIN L. CABUSAO CALLEJO, SR., J.
It is clear that by his actuations, the respondent Sheriff displayed conduct short of the stringent standards required of Court employees. He is guilty of simple neglect of duty, which has been defined as the failure of an employee to give one's attention to a task expected of him, and signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference.[11] Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 19 classifies simple neglect of duty 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.[12]
	AM NO. P-03-1676 2005-06-15	RAMON REYES v. BENJAMIN L. CABUSAO CALLEJO, SR., J.
It is clear that by his actuations, the respondent Sheriff displayed conduct short of the stringent standards required of Court employees. He is guilty of simple neglect of duty, which has been defined as the failure of an employee to give one's attention to a task expected of him, and signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference.[11] Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 19 classifies simple neglect of duty 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.[12]
	AM No. MTJ-02-1438 2004-01-22	EXECUTIVE JUDGE HENRY B. BASILIA v. JUDGE AMADO L. BECAMON QUISUMBING, J.
OCA recommended the penalty of fine in the amount of P5,000 each for respondents Lolita Delos Reyes and Eddie Delos Reyes. But this is not in accord with the law now. Mere delay in the performance of one's function has been consistently considered as simple neglect of duty, a less grave offense, punishable by suspension without pay for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months under Civil Service Rules.[38] In this case, even if we accept that the penalty be in form of a fine, we believe such fine should be equivalent to their pay for one (1) month and one (1) day insofar as respondents Clerk of Court Lolita Delos Reyes and Process Server Eddie Delos Reyes are concerned.
	AM No. MTJ-04-1518 2004-01-15	ATTYS. VILMA HILDA D. VILLANUEVA-FABELLA v. JUDGE RALPH S. LEE PANGANIBAN, J.
Applying the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,[87] we find respondent sheriff guilty of simple neglect of duty for violating Section 7(b) of Rule 57 of the Rules of Court. Simple neglect of duty is the "failure x x x to give proper attention to a task expected"[88] of an employee, thus signifying a "disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference."[89] Classified as a less grave offense, it is punishable by a suspension of one month and one day to six months. Considering that the failure of respondent sheriff to fulfill his duty seems to be his first infraction during his stint in the judiciary, the Court considers the recommended sanction appropriate.
	AM OCA No. P-02-1570 2002-04-03	ATTY. SAMSON DAJAO v. FRANKLIN LLUCH SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Considering the circumstances surrounding this case, we find respondent liable for simple neglect of duty. Simple neglect of duty is the failure of an employee to give proper attention to a task expected of him, signifying "disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference."[11] Under Section 52, Rule IV of the Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999, simple neglect of duty, if committed for the first time, as in this case, is punishable by suspension of 1 month and 1 day to 6 months.

PHILIPPINE RETIREMENT AUTHORITY v. THELMA RUPA