Case Digest (A.M. No. CA-11-24-P)
Facts:
Court of Appeals by: Coc Teresita R. Marigomen, Complainant, vs. Enrique E. Manabat, Jr., Security Guard I, Court of Appeals, Manila, Respondent, A.M. No. CA-11-24-P (formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 10-163-CA-P), November 16, 2011, Supreme Court Second Division, Brion, J., writing for the Court.The complaint arose from the accidental firing of respondent Enrique E. Manabat, Jr.’s service pistol inside the Court of Appeals (CA) guardhouse at around 8:00 a.m. on June 8, 2009 while he was allegedly unloading the firearm to turn it over to the next-shift guard, SG1 Miguel Tamba. The CA Security Services Unit Chief Reynaldo V. Dianco submitted an Investigation Report dated June 15, 2009 to Justice Normandie B. Pizarro, Chairperson of the CA Security and Safety Committee, recommending dismissal for gross neglect of duty; the matter was referred to the CA Clerk of Court, Atty. Teresita R. Marigomen, for investigation.
On June 22, 2009 the CA Clerk of Court filed a formal charge against Manabat for gross neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. In his verified answer Manabat pleaded the discharge was purely accidental, possibly due to a mechanical defect in the 9mm FEG Hungary pistol model (citing recent malfunctions during firing exercises at Camp Crame), and asserted he observed standard unloading safety measures; he attached an affidavit from SG1 Tamba supporting aspects of his account. He later filed a position paper reiterating these defenses.
The CA Clerk of Court, after investigation, did not sustain gross neglect or conduct prejudicial to the service but found Manabat guilty of simple neglect of duty and recommended suspension for one month and one day without pay, with a stern warning. Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. adopted that recommendation and forwarded records to the Supreme Court. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) required Manabat to comment and, after review, likewise concluded the elements of gross negligence were not present but that the incident reflected a failure to exercise requisite diligence, rejecting the mechanical-defect theory because past custodians attested the pistol was in good condition. The OCA noted prior disciplinary actions (re...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether respondent is guilty of gross neglect of duty for the accidental firing of his service pistol.
- Whether respondent is guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
- What administrative penalty, if any, should be impo...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)