Facts:
Complainant
Teresita R. Marigomen, as Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals (
CA), filed an administrative complaint against
Enrique E. Manabat, Jr., Security Guard 1 (
SG1) of the
CA, Manila, for
gross neglect of duty and
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service arising from an accidental firing of his service pistol inside the CA guardhouse on
June 8, 2009. An
Investigation Report dated
June 15, 2009 by Mr. Reynaldo V. Dianco, Chief of the CA Security Services Unit, informed
Justice Normandie B. Pizarro, Chairperson of the CA Security and Safety Committee, that at around
8:00 a.m. of June 8, 2009, respondent, who was inside the guardhouse,
accidentally fired his
9mm FEG Hungary service pistol while unloading it for turnover to SG1 Miguel Tamba, the guard on duty for the next shift. Dianco recommended dismissal from the service. On
June 22, 2009, the CA Clerk of Court filed a
formal charge against respondent and directed him to submit a verified answer within five days. In his verified answer, respondent asserted that the firing was purely accidental and not attended by evident bad faith, and he denied that the incident caused undue injury; he narrated that the pistol went off after he removed the magazine and while emptying the chamber. He stated that he immediately reported the incident to the CA Clerk of Court and that, in turning over the pistol to SG1 Tamba, he followed the usual safety procedure of pointing the firearm’s muzzle toward the ground, particularly to the inner wall of the guardhouse, at a safe distance from his co-officer, which SG1 Tamba attested to in an affidavit attached to his answer. Respondent also blamed the incident on possible mechanical defect, claiming that during their recent firing course at Camp Crame, 9mm FEG Hungary pistols had malfunctioned; he maintained that this malfunctioning had been communicated to Justice Pizarro and that their police instructor advised that they should no longer use the 9mm FEG Hungary pistols due to potential future problems. After investigation, the CA Clerk of Court found respondent not guilty of
gross neglect of duty and
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, but found him liable for
simple neglect of duty and recommended
suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day without pay, with a stern warning that repetition would be punished more severely. The CA Presiding Justice adopted the recommended penalty and elevated the records. The
Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) required respondent to comment on the formal charge, and on review, the OCA agreed that respondent was guilty only of
simple neglect of duty; it found the elements of gross negligence absent and rejected liability for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service because the records did not show that respondent’s negligent act compromised the integrity and efficacy of the government service. The OCA further rejected respondent’s claim of defective firearm, reasoning that evidence showed the same service pistol issued to him was in good condition and had never been reported to have malfunctioned, as attested by former SG1 Marcialito Villaflor and SG1 Romeo Pimentel, who had earlier been issued the same pistol. Citing respondent’s prior infractions and his performance ratings, the OCA recommended suspension for
one (1) month and one (1) day without pay and a stern warning against repetition. The case thus proceeded for disposition by the Court, which resolved the administrative complaint.
Issues:
Whether respondent
Enrique E. Manabat, Jr. was administratively liable for
simple neglect of duty instead of
gross neglect of duty, and whether he was also liable for
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for the accidental discharge of his service pistol inside the CA guardhouse on June 8, 2009.
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: