G.R. No. L-23996 - Pacis vs. Pamaran

On November 15, 2013, at around 9:00 a.m., Security Guard I Enrique E. Manabat, Jr. requested permission from Acting Chief of Security Ricky R. Regala to go to the Philippine General Hospital (PGH) for his scheduled physical therapy.
After the scheduled therapy time, at around 1:00 p.m., Regala observed that the respondent’s security post remained unmanned.
Inquiries with fellow security personnel revealed that the respondent had not reported back for duty, and subsequent checks with PGH confirmed that he never underwent the scheduled therapy session.

The investigation further uncovered that from November 19 to 22, 2013, the respondent was absent without official leave (AWOL) and did not notify his superiors or colleagues of his prolonged absence.
Due to the unattended post and failure to report back, Regala recommended that the respondent be dismissed from service.

On January 21, 2016, the CA Clerk of Court filed a Formal Charge against the respondent for Simple Neglect of Duty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, directing him to file an answer under oath within five days.
In his Counter-Affidavit dated March 11, 2016, the respondent claimed that:

At around 4:00 p.m. on November 15, 2013, while returning from PGH, he received an emergency call from his wife regarding a family crisis (fetching a relative, a victim of Typhoon Yolanda).
Overwhelmed by the emergency, he proceeded directly to the bus station in Pasay City to assist, inadvertently failing to log out or inform his superiors.
His absence from November 19 to 22, 2013 was similarly attributed to family obligations, in which he helped his wife comfort her relative.

Initially, the respondent had sought a formal investigation but later opted not to present any additional documentary or testimonial evidence during the preliminary conference, after which both parties were required to submit their memoranda.

The CA Clerk of Court’s Report and Recommendation (May 30, 2017) highlighted that:

The respondent failed to notify his superiors that he would not be reporting back for duty after his scheduled therapy.
Evidence supported that he never attended his scheduled therapy session, leaving his post unmanned and violating duty protocols.
His previous record, which included a finding for simple neglect of duty, compounded his misconduct.

On July 11, 2017, the case was referred by then Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. for appropriate action.
The Court, in its August 1, 2017 Resolution, referred the matter to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
The OCA’s Report and Recommendation (August 24, 2017) reiterated:

The respondent was guilty of simple neglect of duty due to his failure to report for work and effectively notify his superiors.
His abandonment of the post constituted conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and warranted dismissal, especially considering his prior offenses.

The Court noted that the respondent’s failure to report back after his supposed therapy session and his prolonged AWOL period were undisputed.
Despite his claim of a family emergency, the Court observed:

His inability to provide consistent and reliable explanations (inconsistencies between his initial and subsequent answers).
The fact that documentary evidence from the PGH indicated that he had not attended the scheduled therapy session.

His actions were deemed not merely inadvertent or careless but willful, indicating gross neglect of duty.
The respondent’s lengthy and blemished service record further underscored the gravity of his misconduct.

Whether the respondent’s failure to return to his post and his AWOL from November 19 to 22, 2013, constituted simple neglect of duty or escalated to gross neglect of duty.
Whether his failure to promptly notify his superiors, and the resultant negative impact on the service (i.e., leaving his post unmanned), justified a dismissal from service.

Whether the respondent’s claim of a family emergency (related to Typhoon Yolanda) provided a valid excuse for his failure to log out or communicate with his superiors.
Whether the inconsistencies in his explanations could mitigate his liability or reduce the severity of the charges.

How the respondent’s history of simple neglect and other past disciplinary infractions influenced the Court’s determination concerning the present offense.
Whether his 17 years of government service could serve as a mitigating factor given his prior sanctions.