Title
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas vs. Bool
Case
G.R. No. 207522
Decision Date
Apr 18, 2021
BSP employee Nelson Bool failed to detect misspelled surname on banknotes, leading to gross neglect of duty charges. Supreme Court upheld dismissal, rejecting mitigating factors.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-11107)

Relevant Dates and Procedural History

  • August 11, 2005: BSP awarded the printing contract to FCOF.
  • September 15, 2005: Bool was authorized to travel to France as BSP representative to supervise quality control.
  • November 9, 2005: The misspelling of the President’s surname was discovered.
  • December 10, 2009: BSP’s Investigation Report found Bool guilty of gross neglect of duty and recommended dismissal plus accessory penalties.
  • October 4, 2010: BSP denied Bool’s motion for reconsideration.
  • November 15, 2011: Civil Service Commission (CSC) affirmed BSP’s decision and added the penalty of bar from taking Civil Service Examination.
  • February 1, 2012: CSC denied motion for reconsideration.
  • January 21, 2013: Court of Appeals (CA) partly granted Bool’s petition, reducing the penalty from dismissal to one-year suspension without pay.
  • May 20, 2013: CA denied BSP’s motion for reconsideration.
  • April 18, 2021: Supreme Court rendered the final decision.

Applicable Law

The case was decided under the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Governing rules include:

  • Section 52(A)(2), Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (Uniform Rules), classifying gross neglect of duty as a grave offense punishable by dismissal, even on first offense.
  • Section 46(A)(2), Rule 10 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (Revised Rules), similarly categorizing gross neglect of duty as grave and punishable by dismissal.
  • Section 53, Rule IV of the Uniform Rules, allowing consideration of mitigating, aggravating, or alternative circumstances in penalty imposition, including good faith, length of service, and first offense.

Facts and Findings

The BSP contracted FCOF to produce and deliver 160 million 100-Piso notes and 89 million 1,000-Piso notes. Bool was designated as BSP’s authorized representative to witness and approve the quality of the printed litho and intaglio proof sheets before actual production. Despite this role, Bool failed to detect that the former President’s surname on the 100-Piso notes was misspelled.

The BSP deemed this failure gross neglect of duty, as Bool’s task was specifically to ensure the printed proof sheets conformed to BSP standards, including accuracy of all features. Bool admitted that he focused mainly on color, registration, and design aspects and did not verify the spelling, claiming it was not his responsibility. The BSP and later the CSC characterized this conduct as more than ordinary negligence, emphasizing the significance of his role and the impact of his oversight, including wasted government funds and public embarrassment.

Civil Service Commission’s Ruling

The CSC affirmed BSP’s finding of gross neglect of duty, imposing the penalty of dismissal from service with accessory penalties including forfeiture of retirement benefits and cancellation of civil service eligibility. It further barred Bool from taking the Civil Service Examination. The CSC emphasized that the error and its repercussions were grave and that Bool’s experience and long tenure only heightened his duty to exercise meticulous care.

Court of Appeals’ Decision

The CA modified the penalty by reducing it from dismissal to a one-year suspension without pay. It relied on mitigating factors such as Bool’s length of service, his assertion of good faith, and that this was his first offense. The CA referenced jurisprudence allowing mitigation of penalties in the presence of such circumstances, particularly invoking the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hao v. Andres. The CA ultimately concluded that the penalty imposed by CSC was too harsh under the circumstances.

Issue on Appeal

The central question was whether the CA erred in downgrading the penalty from dismissal to suspension, contrary to the mandatory penalty prescribed by law for gross neglect of duty.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Ruling

The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the CA’s ruling, reinstating the penalty of dismissal from service plus accessory penalties as imposed by CSC, but modifying that Bool should receive monetary equivalent of his accrued leave credits.

Key Points in the Court’s Legal Analysis:

  • Gross neglect of duty is a grave offense mandating dismissal, even for first-time offenders, under the Uniform and Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
  • Section 53 of the Uniform Rules permits consideration of mitigating and aggravating circumstances, even for indivisible penalties such as dismissal, only when clear and substantial proof justifies deviation from the prescribed penalty.
  • Two constitutional principles govern administrative penalties: public accountability and social justice. The Court must balance preserving government integrity and confidence against mitigating harsh consequences for offenders fairly.
  • The Court upheld the factual finding that Bool was guilty of gross neglect of duty but rejected the CA’s reliance on mitigating circumstances, particularly length of service, good faith, and first offense.
  • Length of service is an alternative circumstance, not automatically mitigating; it can be aggravating if it enabled the commission of the offense, especially when the offense is serious or grave.
  • Here, Bool’s long s

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.

About Privacy Terms