Title
Marigomen vs. Manabat, Jr.
Case
A.M. No. CA-11-24-P
Decision Date
Nov 16, 2011
Security guard accidentally discharged service pistol during turnover; found liable for simple neglect, suspended for one month, and required to undergo firearm safety training.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 189878)

Factual Background

On June 8, 2009, at approximately 8:00 a.m., while attempting to unload his service pistol for a shift turnover, Enrique E. Manabat, Jr. accidentally fired the weapon. This incident was reported by Mr. Reynaldo V. Dianco, Chief of the CA Security Services Unit, which led to an investigation and a recommendation for Manabat's dismissal due to gross neglect of duty.

Formal Charges and Respondent's Defense

A formal charge was filed against Manabat on June 22, 2009, accusing him of gross neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the service. In his written response, Manabat asserted that the discharge was accidental, not due to any bad faith, and that he had followed standard safety procedures by pointing the gun's muzzle towards a safe direction. He further argued that the weapon may have been defective, as similar firearms had malfunctioned during a recent training course.

Investigative Findings and Recommendations

After a thorough investigation, the CA Clerk of Court determined that while Manabat was not guilty of gross neglect of duty, he was liable for simple neglect, recommending a penalty of suspension for one month and one day without pay, accompanied by a warning for future conduct.

Office of the Court Administrator's Review

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) reviewed the case and upheld the finding of simple neglect of duty. The OCA pointed out that while Manabat did not demonstrate gross negligence, his failure to ensure the firearm was clear before unloading still constituted neglect. They also dispelled his claims regarding the alleged defect of the firearm, confirming that it had not been reported as malfunctioning.

Ruling of the Court

The Court agreed with the OCA's findings. It noted that while the discharge of the firearm may stem from mechanical failure or operator error, Manabat's actions exhibited carelessness, as basic firearm safety protocols were not rigorously adhered to. The Court clarified that not all incidents of negligence rise to the level of gross neglect, thus affirming that Manabat's actions were not willful or intentionally reckless.

Penalty Imposed

The Court imposed a penalty of suspension for one month and one day without pay, deeming it appropriate given the circumstances and the fact that

...continue reading

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