A.M. No. CA-18-35-P - Re: Ricky R. Regala

Case Summary (A.M. No. CA-18-35-P)

Procedural Antecedents in the Court of Appeals

In an Investigation Report dated December 9, 2013, Acting Chief of Security Regala informed the CA Security Committee that on November 15, 2013, at around nine in the morning, respondent asked permission to go to the PGH for his scheduled physical therapy. At around one in the afternoon, complainant observed that respondent’s post remained unmanned. When complainant inquired with other security guards on duty, he was told that they had not seen respondent return. Upon verification with the PGH, complainant learned that respondent never went to his scheduled physical therapy. Complainant further reported that respondent had been AWOL from November 19 to November 22, 2013 and had not informed his colleagues that he would not report for work. Complainant consequently recommended dismissal from service.

On January 21, 2016, the CA Clerk of Court (CoC) filed a Formal Charge against respondent for Simple Neglect of Duty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. Respondent was directed to file an answer under oath within five days from receipt.

Respondent’s Version of Events and his Waiver of Evidence

In his Counter-Affidavit dated March 11, 2016, respondent claimed that at around four in the afternoon on November 15, 2013, he was about to return to the CA from the PGH. He alleged that he received an emergency call from his wife, informing him that they needed to fetch a relative of hers who was a victim of Typhoon Yolanda. Respondent stated that he went immediately to the bus station in Pasay City to meet his wife and the relative, and that, due to confusion and urgency, he forgot to log out or communicate with colleagues or superiors.

Respondent also claimed that he could not report for work from November 19 to November 22, 2013 because he helped his wife comfort their relative after the tragedy that had affected their family. He insisted that his infractions were neither deliberate nor intentional and that a suspension would be harsh given his long years in government service.

Respondent initially requested a formal investigation, but the CA dispensed with it after he manifested during the preliminary conference that he would no longer file documentary or testimonial evidence. The parties were then required to submit memoranda.

CA Report and Recommendation and Referral to the Supreme Court

In its May 30, 2017 Report and Recommendation, the CA CoC observed that respondent failed to inform his superior that he would not return to his post after the scheduled therapy session and that he would not be reporting for work from November 19 to 22, 2013. The report emphasized that during his absence the post was left unmanned. Relying on the evidence presented by complainant, the CA CoC found that respondent never attended his scheduled therapy session and recommended dismissal.

In an Indorsement dated July 11, 2017, then Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. referred the matter to the Supreme Court for appropriate action. On August 1, 2017, the Court referred the case to the OCA for evaluation, report, and recommendation.

OCA Findings

In its August 24, 2017 Report and Recommendation, the OCA agreed that respondent was guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty, describing his conduct as carelessness or indifference because he failed to report for work after his PGH therapy. The OCA held that his failure to inform his superiors that he could not report back and would be absent for several days was inexcusable. The OCA also found that his act of abandoning his post constituted Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. It agreed with dismissal from service, especially in view of respondent’s prior disciplinary findings.

Supreme Court’s Evaluation of Neglect: From Simple to Gross

Upon review, the Court concurred with the OCA’s dismissal recommendation but undertook its own assessment of the degree of negligence. The Court treated as undisputed respondent’s failure to return to his post after his physical therapy at the PGH and his failure to report for work from November 19 to 22, 2013. Respondent maintained that a family emergency clouded his judgment and argued that his failure to inform superiors was not intentional. The Court rejected that position as insufficient to negate negligence.

The Court explained the standards for simple neglect of duty and gross neglect of duty. It held that simple neglect is the failure to give proper attention to a task expected of an employee, resulting from carelessness or indifference. Gross neglect, by contrast, is negligence marked by a glaring want of care, or conduct characterized by a willful and intentional omission where there is duty, or acting with conscious indifference to consequences affecting others. The Court reiterated that gross neglect is a grave offense while simple neglect is a less grave offense.

Applying these definitions, the Court initially reasoned that regardless of respondent’s claimed intention, leaving the post unmanned after failing to report back at least constituted simple neglect because he could have communicated with his superiors with adequate diligence. The Court further noted that the PGH was near the CA and that respondent could have personally informed his superiors regarding the family emergency. However, after a careful review, the Court concluded that respondent was guilty of gross neglect of duty, not merely simple neglect.

The Court’s finding of gross neglect rested on the documentary information from the PGH presented by complainant. The Court found that respondent never attended the scheduled therapy session because the last time he received treatment was on November 5, 2013. Respondent asked permission to leave his post because he needed to go to the PGH, but the evidence showed he did not actually attend the planned therapy. The Court characterized this as respondent making up a ruse to leave his station and then failing to come back. The Court treated this pattern as evincing that respondent’s abandonment and neglect were intentional or willful, and not due to inadvertence or mere carelessness.

The Court also observed that even if the offense were categorized as either gross neglect or simple neglect, the ultimate penalty would still be dismissal under the circumstances presented. It explained that gross neglect, as a grave offense, is punishable by dismissal from service, while simple neglect may also result in severance when it is a second offense.

Prior Offense and the Penalty of Dismissal

In assessing the propriety of dismissal, the Court considered respondent’s disciplinary history. It noted that in Court of Appeals by: COC Marigomen v. Manabat, Jr., respondent had previously been found guilty of simple neglect of duty for accidentally discharging his service firearm. The Court referred to the prior penalty—suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day—and the warning that repetition of the same or similar offense would be treated more severely.

The Court also treated respondent’s length of service as non-mitigating under the facts. It stated that length of service is an alternative circumstance that can reduce or aggravate penalty depending on the circumstances. Respondent had served in government service for seventeen (17) years, but his service was described as far from perfect due to repeated disciplinary sanctions. The Court listed prior infractions imposed by the CA, including reprimands and warnings for Simple Discourtesy, Unprofessional Behavior and Acts Prejudicial to the Service, Discourtesy, Disrespect and Arrogance, a suspension for Habitual Absenteeism, corrective disciplinary talks for Discourtesy, Disrespect and Neglect of Duty, and a suspension for one month without pay for Disrespectful Utterance Against Justice Danton Q. Bueser.

Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service

The Court separately affirmed respondent’s liability for Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. It acknowledged that the offense is not always described with exact acts, but it held that abandonment of office and failure to report back for work without prior notice h

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. CA-18-35-P)

Parties and Procedural Posture

The complainant was Ricky R. Regala, acting as Chief of Security of the Court of Appeals, who initiated an administrative complaint against Security Guard I Enrique E. Manabat, Jr.
The respondent security guard was charged with abandonment of his post and absence without prior leave (AWOL).
The matter proceeded through an investigation before the CA Clerk of Court (CoC) and then to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for evaluation, report, and recommendation.
The administrative case reached the Court for final resolution after a referral and subsequent OCA recommendation.
The Court’s disposition was an administrative finding of liability, dismissal from service, and imposition of accessory penalties.

Key Factual Allegations

On November 15, 2013 at around 9:00 a.m., the respondent asked permission to go to the Philippine General Hospital (PGH) for scheduled physical therapy.
By around 1:00 p.m., the complainant observed that the respondent’s post remained unmanned.
When the complainant inquired with other guards on duty, he learned that they did not see the respondent report back for work.
Upon inquiry with the PGH, the complainant learned that the respondent never went to his scheduled physical therapy.
The respondent was also AWOL from November 19 to 22, 2013, and he did not notify colleagues that he would not report for work.
The complainant recommended the respondent’s dismissal from service based on the respondent’s failure to attend therapy, abandonment of his station, and AWOL.
The respondent admitted leaving his post on the day of his alleged therapy but claimed that a family emergency prevented him from properly notifying superiors.

Charges and Formal Complaint

On January 21, 2016, the CA CoC filed a Formal Charge against the respondent for Simple Neglect of Duty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.
The respondent was directed to file an answer under oath within five days from receipt of the charges.
The records show that the initial framing of the misconduct alleged Simple Neglect of Duty, along with Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.
The prosecution and evaluation ultimately treated the respondent’s conduct as warranting dismissal, with the Court assessing the neglect as more serious than the charge initially stated.

Respondent’s Defense Theory

In his Counter-Affidavit dated March 11, 2016, the respondent stated that at about 4:00 p.m. on November 15, 2013, he was about to return to the Court of Appeals from the PGH.
The respondent alleged that he received an emergency call from his wife informing him that they needed to fetch a relative, a victim connected to the aftermath of Typhoon Yolanda.
The respondent asserted that due to confusion and urgency, he forgot to log out and failed to communicate with colleagues or superiors.
He also claimed that his absence from November 19 to 22, 2013 resulted from helping his wife comfort the relative after the tragedy affecting their family.
The respondent insisted that his acts were neither deliberate nor intentional, and he sought a penalty short of dismissal, emphasizing his long government service.
The respondent initially requested a formal investigation, but the same was dispensed with after he manifested he would no longer present documentary or testimonial evidence.
The respondent’s defense thus relied on claimed family emergency circumstances to negate willfulness and intentional neglect.

Investigation Report Findings

In the investigation, the CA CoC concluded that the respondent failed to inform his superior that he would not return after his therapy session and would not report for work from November 19 to 22, 2013.
The CA CoC found that the respondent’s conduct left his post unmanned during the period of absence.
Based on the evidence presented by the complainant, the CA CoC concluded that the respondent never attended the scheduled therapy session at the PGH.
The CA CoC found the respondent guilty of simple neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and it recommended dismissal.
In a subsequent Indorsement dated July 11, 2017, the then Presiding Justice referred the matter to the Court for appropriate action.

OCA Report and Recommendation

In its August 24, 2017 Report and Recommendation, the OCA agreed that the respondent was guilty of simple neglect of duty.
The OCA characterized the respondent’s conduct as carelessness or indifference because he failed to report for work after his supposed therapy.
The OCA found the respondent’s failure to inform his superiors that he could not report back and that he would be absent for numerous days inexcusable.
The OCA held that abandoning the post constituted conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
The OCA recommended dismissal in view of the respondent’s prior administrative history and previous findings of offenses.

Legal Framework on Neglect

The Court applied a doctrinal distinction between simple neglect of duty and gross neglect of duty.
Simple neglect of duty was defined as the failure to give proper attention to a task expected of an employee, resulting from either carelessness or indifference.
Gross neglect of duty was described as negligence characterized by a glaring want of care, or a willful and intentional omission or commission in a situat