G.R. No. 200088 - Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Airline Pilots Association of the Philippines

On February 1, 2001, the City Government of Davao appointed Dr. Edilberto Estampa, Jr. as Medical Officer VI at its City Health Office.
In his capacity as Medical Officer VI, he was designated as:

Head of the Task Force Unit assigned to deal with untoward events in the city.
Disaster Coordinator of the Davao City Health Office under the Davao City Disaster Coordinating Council.

On March 4, 2003, at around 6 p.m., a powerful bomb exploded at the passengers’ terminal of the Davao International Airport, resulting in 22 fatalities and injuring 113 persons.
At the time of the explosion, Dr. Estampa had just arrived home and was caring for his one-year-old daughter.
He was informed of the incident between 7 to 8 p.m., while his wife arrived at 9 p.m. from her work at the Davao Medical Center, where most bombing victims were taken.

On March 6, 2003, Dr. Roberto V. Alcantara, Officer-in-Charge of the Davao City Health Office, required Dr. Estampa to submit a written explanation regarding his failure to respond to the bombing incident.
Dr. Estampa provided an explanation, which initially satisfied Dr. Alcantara, who at that time considered the matter closed without transmitting the case to higher authorities or endorsing it to the City Legal Office.

On January 26, 2004, Dr. Josephine J. Villafuerte, the Davao City Health Officer, inquired about the status of Dr. Estampa’s case.

This inquiry was made through the City’s HRMO and led to the matter being endorsed to the City Legal Office for further verification and investigation.

Subsequently, the Assistant City Legal Officer required Dr. Estampa to answer the charge, but he did not comply immediately.
On March 19, 2004, an Investigation Report was submitted, establishing a prima facie case of neglect of duty against Dr. Estampa and recommending a formal charge.
The city mayor approved the Investigation Report and signed the formal charge against him.
Dr. Estampa filed his answer and supporting documents.
During the pre-trial, he waived his right to counsel, and the parties agreed to proceed by submitting their respective position papers or memoranda.
On November 12, 2004, following the pre-trial, the City Legal Officer found him guilty of “grave” neglect of duty and recommended his dismissal.
The city mayor approved this recommendation on February 8, 2005, thereby dismissing Dr. Estampa.
Dr. Estampa moved for reconsideration, which was denied, prompting him to appeal:

On June 2, 2006, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) affirmed his dismissal and corrected the charge to gross neglect of duty.
He then petitioned the Court of Appeals (CA) for review under Rule 43.

The CA denied his application for a TRO and a writ of preliminary injunction and on March 30, 2009, rendered a decision affirming the CSC’s ruling.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the rulings of the City Legal Officer and the CSC in finding Dr. Estampa guilty of gross neglect of duty for his failure to respond to the March 4, 2003 bombing incident.