Title
Estampa, Jr. vs. City Government of Davao
Case
G.R. No. 190681
Decision Date
Jun 21, 2010
Dr. Estampa, Davao City Disaster Coordinator, failed to respond to a 2003 airport bombing, leading to his dismissal for gross neglect of duty, upheld by courts.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 190681)

Facts of the Case

Dr. Edilberto Estampa, Jr. was appointed as Medical Officer VI and Disaster Coordinator for the Davao City Health Office, responsibilities that included responding to emergencies. On March 4, 2003, a bombing at the Davao International Airport resulted in 22 fatalities and 113 injuries. At the time of the incident, Dr. Estampa was at home caring for his infant daughter and did not leave until 9 p.m. after his wife returned from work, despite learning about the bombing earlier in the evening. After Dr. Estampa's failure to respond was noted, Dr. Roberto V. Alcantara, his superior, initially asked for an explanation, which Dr. Estampa provided, and the case was deemed closed. However, further inquiry led to formal charges against him for neglect of duty.

Proceedings Leading to Dismissal

On January 26, 2004, inquiries into Dr. Estampa's actions prompted the case to be forwarded to the City Legal Office, culminating in a formal investigation by the Assistant City Legal Officer. Despite having been charged, Dr. Estampa did not respond adequately and subsequently faced formal charges for gross neglect of duty. A decision rendered on November 12, 2004, found him guilty and recommended dismissal, which was affirmed by the mayor. Dr. Estampa's appeal to the Civil Service Commission was also denied, confirming his dismissal upheld by the Court of Appeals on March 30, 2009.

Legal Issues Presented

The primary issue addressed by the court was whether the Court of Appeals erred in supporting the findings that Dr. Estampa was guilty of gross neglect of duty due to his inaction during the emergency resulting from the bombing incident.

Findings on Administrative Procedure

The Court reviewed Dr. Estampa's claims regarding procedural deficiencies in the administrative process. It found that the Davao City government, under the authority granted by E.O. 292, correctly initiated an investigation without a sworn complaint and that the formal charge was subsequently filed appropriately. The court emphasized that the allegations were sufficiently communicated to Dr. Estampa, thereby ensuring he was aware of the gravity of the charges against him.

Evidence Evaluation

Dr. Estampa contested that evidence introduced during the appeal, which had not been presented in earlier proceedings, should not have been considered. However, the Court maintained that the basis for its decision was not solely reliant on those newly presented documents but also on Dr. Estampa’s inaction. The court noted that his failure to respond to direct inquiries demonstrated deficiencies in his performance, thus justifying the decision against him.

Due Process Considerations

Regarding assertions of lack of due process, the Court clarified that Dr. Estampa was provided multiple opportunities to present his defense during the inquiry and subsequent administrative proceedings. The timeline of events, including delays attributed to the preliminary investigation, did not rise to the level of violation of his rights, as the process adhered to established administrative protocols.

Severity of the Charges

The Court further a

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.