Title
Re: Ricky R. Regala
Case
A.M. No. CA-18-35-P
Decision Date
Nov 27, 2018
A security guard abandoned his post and went AWOL, citing a family emergency, but evidence showed his claims were fabricated. Despite 17 years of service, his prior offenses and gross neglect led to dismissal.

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

Incident Overview

The allegations originate from a report dated December 9, 2013, in which Regala informed the Security Committee of the Court of Appeals about Manabat's absence from duty. Initially, on November 15, 2013, Manabat had asked permission to attend a scheduled physical therapy session at the Philippine General Hospital (PGH). However, he failed to return to his post afterwards, prompting Regala to inquire about his whereabouts. Upon checking with PGH, Regala learned that Manabat had never attended the therapy session. Additionally, Manabat was absent from November 19 to 22, 2013, without prior notification.

Charges and Response

Following these events, a Formal Charge was filed against Manabat on January 21, 2016, asserting charges of Simple Neglect of Duty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. Manabat responded on March 11, 2016, claiming that an emergency involving his wife’s relative, a victim of Typhoon Yolanda, required his immediate attention, leading him to forget to log out or inform his superiors about his absence.

Investigation and Findings

The investigation report and subsequent recommendations indicated that Manabat’s absence caused his post to be unmanned, which is deemed negligent. The Court of Appeals Clerk of Court’s report noted Manabat’s failure to adhere to proper communication protocols regarding his absences, warranting disciplinary action.

Conclusion of the Office of the Court Administrator

In an August 24, 2017 report, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) concurred with earlier findings, stating that Manabat displayed carelessness and indifference towards his duties. It recommended his dismissal, citing the previous finding of guilt for similar infractions.

Court Ruling

The Court confirmed the OCA's recommendation for dismissal, emphasizing the gravity of Manabat's neglect in failing to return to his post or inform his supervisors about his absence. The Court distinguished between simple neglect of duty and gross neglect of duty, concluding that Manabat’s actions constituted gross neglect due to the intentional nature of his absences and the lack of any compelling excuse.

Prior Disciplinary History

Manabat's previous record as a

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.