Case Summary (G.R. No. 226648-49)
Antecedent Facts
The CESB was established under Presidential Decree No. 1 with the duty to oversee the Career Executive Service. In January 2010, the petitioners were appointed members of the CESB for a six-year term. On June 2, 2010, during a CESB meeting, they participated in deliberations over several applications for CESO appointments, which included recommendations for their own promotions. The resolutions recommending their promotions were subsequently submitted to the OP, which acted on them by approving the appointments.
Administrative Charges
Following the signing of resolutions that included their recommended appointments, the Executive Secretary directed the petitioners to justify why they should not face disciplinary action for conflict of interest violations under relevant statutes, namely Republic Act No. 3019 and Republic Act No. 6713. The petitioners argued that they signed the resolutions inadvertently and claimed no personal gain from their actions. However, formal charges were filed against them citing conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
Ruling of the Office of the President
In a January 30, 2013 decision, the OP found the petitioners guilty of simple negligence for failing to recognize the conflict of interest and signing documents pertaining to their own appointments. The OP revoked their CESO ranks and imposed a three-month suspension based on the established principles of ethical conduct required from public officials, highlighting their failure to inhibit themselves during deliberations regarding their own qualifications.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The CA upheld the OP's findings, dismissing the petitioners' claims of insufficient awareness of the documents they were signing, establishing that their roles as CESB members required a higher level of diligence. The CA noted that neglect of duty was evident based on the lack of careful scrutiny of the resolutions before signing, finding no abuse of discretion by the OP in its adjudication.
Legal Analysis
Negligence, as defined in the context of public officials, encompasses the failure to fulfill obligations with the required level of diligence. The petitioners could not justify their negligence by claiming ignorance of the documents they signed. Given their positions and responsibilities, they were expected to act meticulously to avoid conflicts of interest. The court emphasized the principle that public inter
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 226648-49)
Case Background
- This case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioners Proceso T. Domingo, Angelito D. TwaAo, and Susan M. Solo against respondent Executive Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr.
- The petitioners are contesting the Court of Appeals’ Decision dated September 21, 2015, and Resolution dated August 19, 2016, which affirmed the findings of the Office of the President (OP) that they were guilty of simple negligence.
- The OP imposed a three-month suspension on the petitioners and revoked their Career Executive Service Officer (CESO) ranks.
Antecedent Facts
- The Career Executive Service Board (CESB) was established by Presidential Decree No. 1 on September 24, 1972, to govern the Career Executive Service (CES) and review applications for appointments or promotions.
- In January 2010, petitioners were appointed members of the CESB for a six-year term by then-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
- On June 2, 2010, the CESB convened to deliberate on 30 presidential appointees, including the petitioners. They signed Resolutions No. 871 and 872, which recommended their appointments and adjustments in ranks.
- The OP issued new CESO rank appointments on June 20, 2010, based on these resolutions.
- In December 2010, further submissions were made to the President, but in a 2012 memorandum, the OP confirmed appointments of others, excluding the petitioners.
- An Order dated February 22, 2012, directed the petitioners to explain why they should not face administ