FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 237197. November 11, 2021.]
PHILIPPINE CHARITY SWEEPSTAKES OFFICE (PCSO), petitioner, vs.ROLANDO B. CHACON, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 11, 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 237197 (Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO), petitioner, v. Rolando B. Chacon, respondent).
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioner Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) praying for the reversal of the August 24, 2016 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 138249 in so far as it affirmed with modification Decision No. 140675 2 of the Civil Service Commission (CSC), dated August 26, 2014, finding respondent Rolando B. Chacon (Chacon) administratively liable but downgrading the offense from Gross Neglect of Duty to Simple Neglect of Duty. Likewise assailed in this petition is the January 25, 2018 Resolution 3 of the appellate court in the same case which denied the motion for reconsideration of PCSO.
PCSO is a government agency mandated to raise and provide funds for health programs, medical assistance and services, and charities of national character. Its main headquarters was formerly located within the Quezon Institute (QI) Compound in Quezon City, which was operated and managed by the Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc. (PTSI). Sometime in 2010, the Department of Public Works and Highways, in concurrence with the findings of a private engineering firm hired by PCSO, recommended the demolition of the PCSO-QI Building because it was already of poor structural integrity. Consequently, PCSO decided right away to terminate its lease with PTSI and to transfer its offices to the Philippine International Convention Center (PICC) in Pasay City.
In December 2010, during the course of the transfer of offices, rampant looting took place at the PCSO-QI Building resulting in the loss of numerous equipment and materials. In a Memorandum 4 dated May 11, 2011, Atty. Jose Ferdinand Rojas II, General Manager, PCSO, informed Chacon, who was then the Officer-in-Charge (OIC), Assistant Department Manager for General Services, Administrative Department, PCSO, of the charges against him as regards the looting incident and directed him to file his counter-affidavit. After Chacon submitted his Comment (to the Letter dated 11 May 2011), 5 the Office of the PCSO General Manager conducted a fact-finding investigation.
On June 10, 2011, the Office of the General Manager, PCSO, filed a Formal Charge 6 against Chacon, which reads:
This Office has found, after a fact-finding investigation, that a prima facie case against you exists for GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY punishable under the Civil Service Rules, committed as follows:
1. That based on the investigation conducted by this Office, the following items were missing from the inventory: 1) at least five (5) kms. long of electric cable wires as shown in a certified true copy of the Estimated Feeder Line Cables Installed [at the] PCSO-QI [per] Plan A; 2) motor of the old elevator; 3) steel bars; and 4) scrap materials;
2. That based on your actual duties and responsibilities as the then OIC-Assistant Department Manager for General Services of the Administrative Department, you are responsible for the x x x. b) maintenance, control and accounting of supplies in accordance with established guidelines; c) inventory and other related accounting functions in the control and use of equipment and other office property, property utilization and disposal; [x x x] e.) maintenance of all office buildings, ground, equipment and motor vehicles. x x x. Special Order No. 2010-112 was likewise issued by the Office of the General Manager creating a Special Task Force, with you as the Head, to conduct inspection of the premises of PTSI property and submit proper documentation to which Mr. Chacon was assigned to head[;]
3. That your failure and/or refusal to perform your assigned tasks and duties led to the widespread loss of PCSO properties;
4. That you failed and/or refused to report the loss of the above-enumerated equipment and material;
5. That the foregoing constitutes Gross Neglect of Duty as penalized under Section 52(A)(2), Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (URACCS) and Section 23(b), Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987;
6. That your acts and/or omissions have deprived the government, particularly the PCSO, of properties for and in furtherance of public service and usage,
7. That as a public servant, your acts and/or omissions are detrimental to the public which you are duty-bound to serve with utmost dedication, responsibility and integrity.
Chacon was directed to file his answer to the charge and was also placed under 90-day preventive suspension for the meantime.
At the preliminary conference, the parties agreed to the submission of position papers instead of a formal hearing.
In its Position Paper, 7 PCSO made the following averments in support of its charge against Chacon:
6. On 01 October 2010, GM Rojas II issued a Memorandum directing all department heads and office requisitioner to prepare a list of inventory of all office properties in preparation of the transfer to the PICC. Despite this order, Respondent Chacon failed to consolidate the inventory of all PCSO equipment and properties, for record and reference. It may not be argued that he [was] not directed to do so, since such duty is one of the inherent duties attached to his designation as OIC-ADM for General Services of the Administrative Department;
Such neglect is not simple.
7. The inaction and neglect of Respondent Chacon is further strengthened by the succeeding events where PCSO discovered the loss of the equipment and properties enumerated above;
8. In the affidavit (Exhibit "E") executed by Engr. Maximino Balayo, OIC-Division Chief of the Maintenance Division, he stated that they take orders from his immediate superior Respondent Chacon on how to implement the transfer. Among the other tasks assigned to him during the period of the transfer, Engr. Balayo took charge of pulling the cable feeder lines but he stated that there was another group, particularly that of Alex Suarez, also a PCSO employee, pulling out cables.
Engr. Balayo also stated in his Affidavit that in one occasion, he saw a group dismantling the I-Beam Steel Bar from the storage van of the Charity Clinic Department, he saw a certain Richard Jimenez, observing the dismantling and when asked, told him that they were doing so upon orders of Respondent Chacon. He then called Respondent Chacon to verify the same, who did in fact confirmed that the said dismantling was upon his orders. The exact narrative of this incident is contained in par. 10 of Exhibit ["E."]
9. Bolstering further the statement of Engr. Balayo are the statements of Richard Jimenez and Ricardo Rosalina, contained in Exhibits "F" and "G", respectively, hereto attached and made integral parts hereof.
Affiant Jimenez, categorically stated that, [Respondent Chacon] instructed him to get the metal scraps which he later saw being loaded by four men in an ELF truck. He estimated the volume of the metal scraps as filling the [whole] truck.
Rosalina, a casual PCSO employee on the other hand narrated that he saw another PCSO employee Nilo Butad dismantling the elevator. He asked the latter what he was doing and Mr. Butad replied, "kailangan nang mailabas ito ngayong araw na ito, utos ni Chacon."
Affiant Rosalina also stated that he knows the "Chacon" being referred to by Mr. Butad to be the Respondent herein and who is in fact his immediate superior and that he never again saw the engine of the elevator in any of the PCSO storage areas in the San Marcelino Office or PICC.
xxx xxx xxx
11. Respondent's primary duty is clear. He is in charge of monitoring PCSO equipment and properties and inherently, to keep a record, and inventory of such properties either for maintenance or records purposes.
His denial of liability is overcome by overwhelming evidence proving not only neglect in failing to keep an inventory, and supervise the transfer, but conscious and deliberate effort of a perfect the (sic) plan of carting away PCSO equipment and properties for personal gain. 8
As for Chacon, he alleged in his Position Paper 9 that the charge against him was merely a countermeasure to neutralize the damage after former PCSO Chairman Manuel L. Morato berated then PCSO Chairman Margarita P. Juico for the purported vandalism of the PCSO-QI Building. 10 He extensively quoted the assertions in his comment (to the Letter dated 27 May 2011), earlier submitted to the PCSO General Manager, to wit: (a) the QI Compound is surrounded by junkshops and informal settlers, some of whom are "magbabakal" and "magbobote"; (b) since the electric supply to the PCSO-QI Building was already cut-off on November 30, 2010, the premises was in total darkness and, thus, highly susceptible to looters; (c) because PCSO still had properties left behind at the PCSO-QI Building, the Maintenance Division tried to operate the perimeter lighting by connecting to the generator set in another building but it was disconnected by the PTSI electrician; (d) the Maintenance Division, Supply Management Division, and the Security Force exerted effort to protect the property of PCSO despite the limited time, resources, and huge responsibility that carne with the transfer of offices; (e) after the turn-over of the PCSO-QI Building, PTSI no longer allowed access to the said building and already posted their own security at the premises who did not assist or cooperate with the efforts of PCSO to preserve the properties still left at its former office; (f) the supposedly missing steel bars and scrap materials were not specifically identified or described and so Chacon could not provide a categorical answer as to the supposed removal and disappearance of the same; (g) since he was not provided copies of the reports against him, he likewise could not give a comment thereon; (h) he had never allowed his name to be used by any individual, whether an employee or not of PCSO, in connection with the purported looting incident, and neither did he issue any order to dismantle the motor of the elevator; (i) the scope of his participation in the transfer of offices was merely to coordinate with different government agencies for assistance with the transfer or pull-out of PCSO properties from the PCSO-QI Building, to arrange the schedule among the different departments relative to the transfer, and to prepare the proposed budget for the undertaking; (j) Chacon had already been spending his own money whenever the exigencies of the service required it and had not claimed any refund; (k) in his 26 years of public employment, he had never been accused of any offense; and (1) in view of the Legal Opinion dated October 11, 2010, issued by the PCSO Legal Department, that all improvements and structures introduced by PCSO on the PCSO-QI Building would belong to PTSI upon the termination of the lease, Chacon never ordered the pull-out of any material or appliance from the premises. 11
Further, Chacon claimed that the charge against him was not supported by the required quantum of proof, contending that the allegations in the affidavits of the PCSO witnesses were self-serving, hearsay, or uncorroborated by other evidence. Chacon reiterated that he would not order the removal or pull-out of any material or equipment from the PCSO-QI Building in deference to the Legal Opinion dated October 11, 2010 issued by the PCSO Legal Department. He then pointed out that Memorandum Order No. 2010-137 dated October 7, 2010 designated Engr. Maximino B. Balayo, Jr. (Engr. Balayo), the OIC-Chief of the Maintenance Division, and one of the PCSO witnesses against him, as the point person for all technical, electrical, and other maintenance/engineering concerns in relation to the transfer of the PCSO office to PICC, yet, no case had been filed against Engr. Balayo even though he impliedly admitted the dismantling or, at least, the preparation to dismantle the electric cable wires at the PCSO-QI Building. Chacon lastly asserted that the damage to PCSO was not proven because pursuant to the PCSO Legal Opinion dated October 11, 2010, the purported missing materials were bound to stay at the PCSO-QI Building and were no longer owned by PCSO. 12
The PCSO Ruling
On May 2, 2013, the PCSO Hearing Panel issued a Resolution 13 in Administrative Case No. 2011-19, finding Chacon guilty of gross neglect of duty, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully recommended that[:]
1. Respondent ROLANDO B. CHACON be DISMISSED from the service pursuant to Section 46 A, Rule 10 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, without prejudice to the filing of criminal or civil action as provided for in Section 51 a, Rule 10.
2. Respondent Chacon shall likewise suffer the accessory penalty of cancellation of his eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification from holding public office and barred from taking civil service examinations as provided for in Section 52 a, Rule 10.
3. Nilo Butad of the Administrative Department be required to explain in writing where he brought the motor of the old elevator machine.
SO ORDERED. 14 (emphasis omitted)
Through Resolution No. 109, series of 2013, 15 dated May 8, 2013, the PCSO Board of Directors confirmed and approved the afore-quoted recommendation of the PCSO Hearing Panel in Administrative Case No. 2011-19.
Chacon filed a Motion for Reconsideration 16 but the PCSO Hearing Panel, via its August 5, 2013 Resolution, 17 recommended the denial of said motion, along with other ancillary motions, for lack of merit. Taking into consideration the said recommendation of the PCSO Hearing Panel, as approved by the PCSO General Manager, the PCSO Board of Directors issued its September 30, 2013 Resolution No. 266, series of 2013, 18 resolving to implement the penalty of dismissal against Chacon for gross neglect of duty.
The CSC Ruling
Aggrieved, Chacon filed an appeal with the CSC. The CSC promulgated Decision No. 140675 on August 26, 2014, dismissing Chacon's appeal. Pertinent portions of the CSC decision are reproduced below:
In its Position Paper, the prosecution argued that Chacon is guilty as charged considering the substantial evidence presented through the testimonies of Richard Jimenez, Janitor, Ultimate Care Janitorial [Services], Ricardo Rosalina, casual employee, and Engineer Maximino Balayo, OIC, Division Chief, Maintenance and Transportation Division, Administrative Department, PCSO, who testified that Chacon has ordered the dismantling and/or disposal of the equipment and materials within the premises of the PCSO-QI. These testimonies and evidence submitted by the prosecution were not contradicted by Chacon either by testimonial or documentary evidence. On the other hand, Jimenez, Rosalina, and Balayo mentioned in their affidavits that it was Chacon who gave out orders to pull out the feeder cables, I-beam steel bars and the scrap materials from the PCSO-QI compound.
Chacon merely denied in his position paper the allegations made in the affidavits of the aforesaid prosecution's witnesses without presenting any contrary evidence. The Commission notes that the aforesaid witnesses categorically mentioned Chacon as the source of instructions as regards the dismantling and disposal of the missing equipment and materials from the PCSO-QI compound. x x x
Chacon further argued that the missing equipment and materials are no longer the property of PCSO but of PTSI. He anchors his argument on the opinion rendered by the Legal Department of PCSO with regard to the Limitations [p]rovided for in the MOA by and between PTSI and PCSO which partly provides that "It is clear from the foregoing that all improvements (without qualification whether permanent/non-permanent or useful/ornamental in nature) introduced by PCSO in the leased premises shall become PTSI's property upon the termination of the MOA."
The Commission notes, however, that the same legal opinion clearly exempts from such application and/or interpretation such equipment and chattels that are intended to be installed temporarily for the use of PCSO. Relevant portion of the aforesaid opinion reads, as follows:
"In view thereof, we are of the considered view that the PCSO may not remove the glass panels and doors and all other improvements made on the leased premises, in contravention of the provisions of the MOA with PTSI. However, we submit that the equipment (i.e., generator set, transformers) as well as chattels that were intended to be installed temporarily (i.e., electromechanical fixtures and cables) for the use of the agency may be so removed. Please make sure that due diligence and care is exercised in the dismantling thereof so as not to cause any damage on the premises."
Pointedly, the missing cables, elevator motor, and scrap materials remain the property of PCSO despite the termination of therein MOA with PTSI and their eventual transfer to PICC.
Chacon's argument that it is not his function to oversee the transfer of the properties is misplaced and has no basis. As Assistant Department Manager II of the Administrative Division, among his duties and functions as per Position Description Form (PDF) are: a) to make inventory and other related accounting functions in the control and use of equipment and other office property; and b) to make evaluation of property utilization and disposal.
To the mind of the Commission, these arguments are nothing but excuses intended to escape eventual accountability and responsibility for the loss of the equipment and materials at the PCSO-QI compound.
xxx xxx xxx
In the instant case, there are more than enough pieces of evidence to prove that Chacon is guilty of the charge of Gross Neglect of Duty.
xxx xxx xxx
From the foregoing jurisprudence, it is evident that Chacon failed to give proper attention to his task of securing and protecting the various equipment and properties of PCSO at the QI compound before, during and after the eventual transfer of PCSO from QI to PICC. The lack or absence of proper lighting and the lack of access to the compound after the transfer of PCSO to PICC and existence of looters or informal settlers in the vicinity of QI did not give Chacon the liberality not to perform with utmost diligence his duties and responsibilities as Assistant Department Manager II for General Services Department. 19
In the end, the CSC decreed:
WHEREFORE, the appeal of Rolando B. Chacon, Assistant Department Manager II, Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO), Pasay City, is hereby DISMISSED. Accordingly, the Resolutions dated May 2, 2013 and August 5, 2013 promulgated by the PCSO Hearing Panel and duly approved by Jose Ferdinand M. Rojas II, General Manager of PCSO, and confirmed by the Board of Directors, finding Chacon guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty and imposing upon him the penalty of dismissal from the service with the accessory penalties of cancellation of his eligibility, forfeiture of his retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification from holding public office and bar from taking civil service examination are hereby AFFIRMED, with a MODIFICATION that the accessory penalty of forfeiture of retirement benefits shall not include his terminal leave benefits and personal contribution to the GSIS, if any. 20
Acting on Chacon's motion for reconsideration, the CSC promulgated Resolution No. 1401630 21 on November 11, 2014, declaring that there was no valid and substantial ground to warrant the reversal of its earlier decision. It noted that Chacon merely reiterated in his motion the same arguments that he had previously raised in his appeal, without presenting any new evidence which would materially affect the CSC decision. Thus, the CSC held:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Reconsideration of Rolando B. Chacon is DENIED for lack of merit.
Accordingly, the assailed CSC Decision No. 14-0675 dated August 26, 2014 affirming the Resolution of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) finding Chacon guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty and imposing upon him the penalty of Dismissal from the service including the accessory penalties of cancellation of his eligibility, forfeiture of his retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits and personal contributions to the GSIS, if any), perpetual disqualification from re-employment in the government service and bar from taking future civil service examination, STANDS. 22
Insisting on his innocence, Chacon elevated his case to the CA through a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 138249.
The CA Ruling
On August 24, 2016, the CA promulgated the assailed decision. Although the CA still adjudged Chacon to be administratively liable for the loss of the PCSO equipment and materials, it downgraded his offense from gross neglect of duty to simple neglect of duty, reasoning that:
In the instant case, there is reasonable ground to believe that [Chacon] was responsible for the loss of the subject equipment and materials as it was supported by the affidavits of witnesses who categorically mentioned [Chacon] as the source of instructions with respect to the dismantling and disposal of the missing equipment and materials from the PCSO-QI compound.
xxx xxx xxx
It is evident that [Chacon] failed to give the proper attention to his task of securing and protecting the various equipment and properties of PCSO at the QI compound before, during and after the eventual transfer of PCSO from QI to PICC. His failure to provide general supervision and control of the matters pertaining to the inventory, and other related accounting functions in the control and use of equipment and other office property, property utilization and disposal, led to the eventual loss of the subject company properties. [Chacon] cannot pass the blame to his subordinates since, as the OIC-Assistant Manager of the Administrative Department, he must be accountable to the acts of his subordinates.
Indeed, [Chacon] failed to exercise such degree of accountability and responsibility imposed upon government employees. We believe that [Chacon] is only liable for simple neglect of duty.
xxx xxx xxx
At bar, We cannot consider [Chacon's] negligence as gross in nature because there is nothing in the records showing that he willfully and intentionally caused the loss of the subject equipment and materials. He merely failed to give proper attention to his task of securing and protecting the various equipment and properties of PCSO at the QI compound. His lack of supervision over his subordinates also showed failure on his part to discharge his duties as OIC-Assistant Manager of the Administrative Department.
Under Section 52, Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, 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 [Chacon's] position, We impose upon him the penalty of suspension in the maximum period. 23 (citations omitted)
The fallo of the foregoing decision of the CA states:
FOR THESE REASONS, the assailed Decision No. 14-0675 dated 26 August 2014 and the Resolution No. 14-01630 dated 11 November 2014 rendered by the Civil Service Commission for Gross Neglect of Duty, are AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that [respondent] ROLANDO B. CHACON should be held guilty only of Simple Neglect of Duty. Accordingly, a penalty of SUSPENSION for six (6) months, without pay, is hereby imposed upon him.
SO ORDERED.24
The CA then issued a Resolution, dated January 25, 2018, in which it resolved to: (a) deny the motion for reconsideration of PCSO as the allegations therein were mere rehash of those which it had already judiciously passed upon and found to be without merit in the appellate court's decision; and (b) note Chacon's motion for immediate reinstatement since the CA decision had not yet become final and executory and such motion would be best filed at the proper time with the CSC.
ISSUE
In its present petition, the PCSO seeks recourse from this Court by raising the sole issue of "[w]hether or not the [Court of Appeals] gravely erred when it declared that Chacon's negligence in the performance of his duties and responsibilities constitutes simple neglect of duty." 25
PCSO highlights Chacon's lapses in the performance of his duties to devise a plan, to monitor and secure the office properties, and to supervise the divisions and unit in his Department, hence, providing opportunity for default and resulting in unauthorized disposal and unlawful taking of PCSO properties that are under the care, charge, and custody of the Maintenance and Supply Management Divisions. These lapses undeniably resulted in damage to PCSO. According to PCSO, Chacon's non-performance of his official duties, which led to the eventual loss of PCSO properties, is a blatant disregard of his responsibilities, constituting not only simple, but gross neglect of duty.
By way of opposition to the petition of PCSO, Chacon maintains that: (a) PCSO did not raise any veritable issue that merits the attention of the Court and a reversion to the findings of the CSC; and (b) he did not commit the acts imputed against him and that the responsibility for the missing equipment and materials belongs to Engr. Balayo.
The Court's Ruling
At the outset, the Court points out that the PCSO Hearing Panel, CSC, and the CA were all consistent in finding that Chacon was negligent and should be held administratively liable for the missing PCSO equipment and materials. The only issue is whether his negligence constitutes gross or simple negligence.
Chacon, who did not appeal the CA decision can no longer insist before the Court on his total lack of administrative culpability. At the very least, he is deemed to have accepted the judgment of the appellate court against him for simple negligence.
Jurisprudence has defined negligence as the omission of the diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the place. In the case of public officials, there is negligence when there is a breach of duty or failure to perform the obligation, and there is gross negligence when a breach of duty is flagrant and palpable. 26 An act done in good faith, which constitutes only an error of judgment and for no ulterior motives and/or purposes, is merely simple negligence. 27
The case of Trinidad, Jr. v. Office of the Ombudsman28 is highly instructive on distinguishing between simple and gross negligence:
Dereliction of duty may be classified as gross or simple neglect of duty or negligence. Simple negligence is defined as the failure of an employee to give proper attention to a required task expected of him, or to discharge a duty due to carelessness or indifference. On the other hand, gross negligence is characterized by want of even the slightest care, or by 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 the consequences, or by flagrant and palpable breach of duty. It denotes a flagrant and culpable refusal or unwillingness of a person to perform a duty.
Gross negligence, thus, involves an element of intent, more than mere carelessness or indifference to do one's duty. To be held liable for gross negligence, a public official must have intentionally shirked his duty, fully aware that he is duty-bound to perform. Simply, gross negligence involves consciously avoiding to do one's work. In COC Marigomen, Manabat — a security guard of the CA — was found guilty of simple negligence for accidentally firing his service firearm. Meanwhile, in Sarno-Davin v. Quirante, this Court increased Regional Trial Court Clerk III Quirante's liability from simple to gross negligence for failing to transmit the records of the case to the CA.
Here, We cannot reasonably conclude that Ricardo's failure to check the actual attendance of the workers amounts to gross negligence. First, his failure to check the attendance of the workers of the Oyster Program involves mere carelessness considering that Ricardo's tasks relating to the program was not part of his normal duties as engineer, and was merely a transitory duty. He was not made aware that he was to personally supervise the workers of the program. Second, there is no showing or even any imputation that Ricardo conspired with the workers to defraud the government, nor did he benefit from the worker's double and triple compensation. Third, Ricardo could not be reasonably expected to investigate whether the workers were employed in different government institutions since he was not the one who hired them. Lastly, there is no allegation that Ricardo has committed any prior infractions, nor has he been administratively charged in the past. Nonetheless, Ricardo's carelessness in relying on his subordinate's logbook in signing the workers' DTRs, and in his duty of supervising the workers of the Oyster Program — believing that such a minor task does not entail his full attention — is tantamount to simple negligence. 29 (citations omitted, emphases supplied)
Guided by the aforecited jurisprudence, the Court sustains the conclusion of the CA that Chacon is only liable for simple negligence.
In the present case, Chacon, as the OIC-Assistant Department Manager for General Services, Administrative Department of the PCSO, was responsible for the inventory and other related accounting functions in the control and use of PCSO equipment and other office property; as well as for the evaluation of property utilization and disposal. He was indeed negligent in failing to secure and protect the various equipment and properties of PCSO at the PCSO-QI Building before, during, and after the eventual transfer of PCSO offices from the QI Compound to PICC, thus, resulting in the loss of several equipment and materials, causing damage to PCSO.
Per the affidavits of the PCSO witnesses, Chacon was giving instructions to various people in different divisions and/or departments without proper coordination and a clear or organized system. This resulted in confusion and failure to keep track of where the dismantled equipment and materials were eventually taken or stored. While there is insinuation that Chacon initiated the removal and/or transport of the missing equipment and materials from the PCSO-QI Building to personally profit or benefit therefrom, there was no direct allegation made, much less, substantial evidence presented to prove the same. Where the charges on which the removal of the public officer is sought are misconduct in office, gross negligence, or corruption, the ground for dismissal should be clearly established. 30
The Court does not perceive, on Chacon's part, a flagrant and culpable refusal or unwillingness to perform his duties. Instead, what is apparent is Chacon's miscomprehension of the scope of his duties and responsibilities, particularly as regards the transfer of offices, and misinterpretation of the PSCO Legal Opinion, dated October 11, 2010, on the status of improvements made on the PCSO-QI Building upon the termination of the lease between PCSO and PTSI. It should be home in mind that the transfer of the entire PCSO headquarters from the QI Compound to PICC was not only an extraordinary event, but was also undertaken with urgency because of the safety concerns over the PCSO-QI Building. Chacon necessarily had to undertake duties and responsibilities beyond and greater than those he performed on a regular or daily basis when he had to lead the preparation of an inventory, dismantlement, transport, and protection of all PCSO property as they transferred offices from the QI Compound to PICC over a limited period of time.
In his defense, Chacon recounted that the electric supply to the PCSO-QI Building was cut-off by November 30, 2010 and, as a result, the premises was in total darkness at night and left susceptible to looting. Although the PCSO Maintenance Division attempted to operate the perimeter lighting by connecting to the generator set in another building within the QI Compound, it was disconnected by the PTSI electrician. Moreover, after the turn-over of the PCSO-QI Building to PTSI, PTSI already posted its own security at the premises who disallowed access to PCSO employees even though there were still PCSO property left inside the building. At the same time, Chacon had been performing what he perceived to be his duties and responsibilities in relation to the transfer, i.e., preparing the budget for the transfer, seeking the assistance of and coordinating with different government agencies for the pull-out of PCSO properties from the PCSO-QI Building and transfer of the same to PICC, and arranging the schedule among the different PCSO departments as to when they could transfer to their new offices in PICC. These unrefuted allegations of Chacon show that he was actually performing his duties and responsibilities, even if limited in scope, and taking steps to protect the PCSO properties left at the PCSO-QI Building despite the non-cooperation of PTSI. Thus, it cannot be said that he intentionally shirked his duties or consciously avoided his work as to be grossly negligent. Undeniably, Chacon's efforts were not enough. He had been careless in failing to submit a complete inventory of the PCSO property as well as to closely supervise his subordinates during the transfer of offices, which resulted in the loss of equipment and materials, and this makes him liable for simple negligence.
The Court also takes into consideration that in his 26 years of government service, Chacon had not been previously accused of any other administrative offense.
"Gross Neglect of Duty" is classified as a grave offense punishable by dismissal from service under Rule 10, Section 46 (A) (2) of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service; while "Simple Neglect of Duty" is deemed a less grave offense punishable by suspension of one month and one day to six months for the first offense and dismissal from service for the second offense pursuant to Rule 10, Sec. 46 (D) (1) of the same Revised Rules. Since Chacon is liable only for simple negligence and this is his first administrative offense in his 26 years of public employment, the Court sustains the penalty of six months suspension without pay imposed upon him by the Court of Appeals.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing reasons, the Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of merit, and the assailed August 24, 2016 Decision and January 25, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 138249 are AFFIRMED. DETACa
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
by:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 30-42; penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez, with Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, concurring.
2.Id. at 71-81; penned by Commissioner Robert S. Martinez with Chairman Francisco T. Duque III and Commissioner Nieves L. Osorio, concurring.
3.Id. at 43-44.
4.Id. at 106.
5.Id. at 108-110.
6.Id. at 111-112.
7.Id. at 128-131.
8.Id. at 129-130.
9.Id. at 145-159.
10.Id. at 145.
11.Id. at 147-149.
12.Id. at 151-157.
13.Id. at 179-188, signed by Atty. Roman Torres, Chairman, and Any. John Derek Porciuncula and Mr. Onofre Consolacion, Members; and approved by Atty. Jose Ferdinand M. Rojas II, PCSO General Manager.
14.Id. at 187-188.
15.Id. at 189-190.
16.Id. at 192-203.
17.Id. at 216-220; signed by Atty. Roman C. Torres, Chairman, and Atty. John Derek N. Porciuncula and Mr. Onofre E. Consolacion, Members; and approved by Atty. Jose Ferdinand M. Rojas II, PCSO General Manager.
18.Id. at 221-222.
19.Id. at 78-80.
20.Id. at 81.
21.Id. at 83-89, penned by Commissioner Robert S. Martinez with Chairman Francisco T. Duque III and Commissioner Nieves L. Osorio, concurring.
22.Id. at 89.
23.Id. at 38-41.
24.Id. at 41.
25.Id. at 18.
26.Pleyto v. PNP Criminal Investigation and Detection Group, 563 Phil. 842, 910 (2007); Atty. Navarro v. Office of the Ombudsman, 793 Phil. 453, 475-476 (2016); San Diego v. Fact-Finding Investigation Committee, OMB-MOLEO, G.R. No. 214081, April 10, 2019.
27.San Diego v. Fact-Finding Investigation Committee, OMB-MOLEO, supra.
28. G.R. No. 227440, December 2, 2020.
29.Id.; citing Court of Appeals by: COC Marigomen v. Manabat, Jr., 676 Phil. 157, 164 (2011) and Sarno-Davin v. Quirante, A.M. No. P-19-4021, January 15, 2020.
30.Callanta v. Office of the Ombudsman, 349 Phil. 584, 603 (1998).