G.R. No. 179018 - Paglaum Management and Development Corp. vs. Union Bank of the Philippines

The case involves respondent Atty. Jerry R. Toledo, formerly the Branch Clerk of Court (now Clerk of Court V) of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 259 in ParaAaque City, and his subordinate, Menchie A. Barcelona, Clerk III and evidence custodian.
A administrative case was instituted following the disappearance of significant quantities of evidence—960.20 grams of shabu in Criminal Case No. 01-1229 and 293.92 grams in Criminal Case No. 03-0408—while the evidence was stored in a steel cabinet.

In November 2003, it was discovered that the two quantities of shabu evidence went missing from the cabinet under the custody of Barcelona, for whom Toledo was the immediate supervisor.
An administrative investigation conducted by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) concluded that both respondents were administratively liable for neglect of duty, recommending relatively moderate penalties: a suspension for Atty. Toledo for two months and one day and one month and one day suspension for Barcelona.

Subsequently, the court issued a Per Curiam Decision on February 4, 2020, which found both Atty. Toledo and Barcelona guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty and imposed dismissal from service, cancellation of civil service eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits), and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in any government agency.
Following the decision, both respondents filed motions for reconsideration. A Resolution on December 1, 2020, referred the motions to the OCA, whose January 18, 2021 memorandum recommended denying the motions for lack of merit.
Despite the denial in the Resolution dated February 16, 2021, Atty. Toledo filed a Manifestation and Motion for Reconsideration Ad Cautelam as his second motion, raising further issues.

He argued that he neither deliberately nor recklessly failed to discharge his supervisory duties, asserting that preventing the pilferage was beyond his control despite his diligent performance.
He contended that the immediate lapses attributable to Barcelona, such as the delayed placement of evidence into the steel cabinet, should not be imputed to him since it is practically impossible to monitor every action of his subordinates.
Atty. Toledo also asserted that even if his negligence was established, dismissal was too harsh a penalty given mitigating circumstances such as his 24 years of service, exemplary employment record, and demonstrated work ethics.

Whether Atty. Toledo committed Gross Neglect of Duty under the circumstances, considering his supervisory role over the evidence custodian and the failure to secure the evidence.
Whether his failure to personally inventory or know the contents of the steel cabinet constitutes gross neglect as opposed to a mere oversight.

Whether the penalty of dismissal from service is justified for the offense committed by Atty. Toledo, taking into account the mitigating circumstances presented.
Whether a less severe penalty, such as suspension or fine, should be imposed instead, given his record, absence of corrupt intent, and the potential hardship on his livelihood.