Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

COURT OF APPEALS BY: COC A.M. No. CA-11-24-P

TERESITA R. MARIGOMEN, (formerlyA.M. OCAI.P.I. No. 10-163-CA-P)
Complainant,
Present:

CARPIO, J.,
Chairperson,
- versus - BRION,
PEREZ,
SERENO, and
REYES, JJ.

ENRIQUE E. MANABAT, JR., Security Promulgated:

Guard I, Court of Appeals, Manila,
Respondent. November 16, 2011

x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

RESOLUTION

BRION, J.:

We resolve the present administrative complaint filed against Enrique E. Manabat,

Jr. (respondent), Security Guard 1 (SG1) of the Court of Appeals (CA), Manila, for
gross neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service by
the accidental firing of his service pistol inside the CA guardhouse on June 8,
2009.

In an Investigation Report[1] dated June 15, 2009, Mr. Reynaldo V. Dianco, Chief of
the CA Security Services Unit, informed Hon. Justice Normandie B. Pizarro,
Chairperson of the CA Security and Safety Committee, that at around 8:00 a.m. of
June 8, 2009, the respondent, who was inside the guardhouse, accidentally fired his
service pistol, a 9mm FEG Hungary, while in the process of unloading it for
turnover to SG1 Miguel Tamba, the guard on duty for the next shift. In the same
report, Mr. Dianco recommended that the respondent be dismissed from the service
for gross neglect of duty. The matter was forwarded to the CA Clerk of Court, Atty.
Teresita R. Marigomen, for investigation.[2]

On June 22, 2009, the CA Clerk of Court filed a formal charge [3] against the
respondent for gross neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of
the service. The respondent was directed to file a written answer, under oath,
within five (5) days from receipt thereof.

In his verified answer,[4] the respondent explained that the firing of his service
pistol on June 8, 2009 was purely accidental, it was not done with evident bad
faith, and it did not cause undue injury to any party; hence, his dismissal from the
service for gross neglect of duty is unwarranted. He narrated that, to his surprise,
the pistol went off after he removed the magazine and while emptying the chamber
load; that immediately after the incident, he reported the same to the CA Clerk of
Court; and that in turning over the pistol to SG1 Tamba, he observed the usual and
safety procedure of pointing the guns muzzle towards the ground, particularly to
the inner wall of the guardhouse, and at a safe distance from his co-officer a fact
attested to by SG1 Tamba in an affidavit attached to his answer.[5] As cause of the
accidental discharge, the respondent intimated that his pistol may have been
defective because during their recent firing course at Camp Crame, service pistols
of the model 9mm FEG Hungary used in the shooting exercises malfunctioned;
that the malfunctioning of the 9mm FEG Hungary pistols was made known to
Justice Pizarro; and that their police instructor at Camp Crame recommended that
they no longer use the 9mm FEG Hungary pistols as they may encounter problems
with them in the future. The respondent reiterated these arguments in the position
paper[6] he subsequently filed with the CA.
 After the investigation, the CA Clerk of Court did not find the respondent
guilty of gross neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
service. However, the CA Clerk of Court found the respondent liable for simple
neglect of duty, and recommended the penalty of one (1) month and one (1) day
suspension without pay, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same offense
would be dealt with more severely. The CA Clerk of Court forwarded the
Investigation Report and Recommendation[7]to CA Presiding Justice Andres B.
Reyes, Jr., who adopted the recommended penalty and forwarded the records of the
instant case to this Court.[8]

In an Indorsement[9] dated March 24, 2010, the Office of the Court

Administrator (OCA) required the respondent to file his comment on the formal
charge against him for gross neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the best
interest of the service.

In his comment,[10] the respondent stressed that the incident was purely
accidental; that he had complied with the standard procedure in unloading his
pistol, but despite this, the pistol still went off without his fault. For this reason, he
argued that the recommended penalty of dismissal from the service is highly
improper and he prayed that the charges against him be dismissed for insufficiency
of evidence. Also, he related that he had been employed with the CA for eleven
(11) years and that his latest performance rating for the period of January to June
2009 was very satisfactory.

After a review of the records, the OCA agreed with the CAs finding that the
respondent is guilty of simple neglect of duty. For one, the OCA did not find the
elements of gross negligence present in the case. The OCA, however, could not
absolve the respondent from liability because the latter, by accidentally firing his
service pistol, still failed to exercise the diligence required in the proper discharge
of his functions; that the respondent should have been extra careful in handling his
firearm while turning it over to SG1 Tamba. The OCA belied the respondents claim
that his service pistol was defective for there was evidence which showed that the
exact same service pistol issued to him was in good condition and has never been
reported for any malfunction this fact was attested to by former SG1 Marcialito
Villaflor and SG1 Romeo Pimentel, to whom the same service pistol had earlier
been issued.[11]

Also, the OCA did not find the respondent liable for the offense of conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service because the records do not show that
the respondents negligent act compromised the integrity and efficacy of the
government service.[12]

In its Recommendation[13] to this Court, the OCA enumerated the previous

infractions committed by the respondent: that in March 1999, the respondent was
reprimanded for discourtesy with stern warning; that in November 2001, he was
sternly reprimanded for unprofessional behavior and acts prejudicial to the service;
and that in June 2005, he was suspended for a month for habitual absenteeism. The
OCA, however, noted that the respondents performance rating for the periods of
January to June 2008 and July to December 2008 were both very satisfactory and
that simple neglect of duty is not one of the offenses for which the respondent was
previously found guilty. Due to these considerations, the OCA agreed with the CA
and submitted that the respondent be suspended for one (1) month and one (1) day,
without pay, and be sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense
shall be dealt with more severely.

THE COURTS RULING

We agree with the OCAs recommendation and find respondent Enrique E.

Manabat, Jr. administratively liable for simple neglect of duty.

The unexpected discharge of a firearm may occur for a variety of reasons. It can be
the result of mechanical failure such as wear, faulty assembly, damage or faulty
design of the firearm, but most often, undesired discharges result from operator
error or due to the carelessness or ineptness of the person handling the firearm. It is
for the latter reason that our court security personnel are taught the basic rules of
firearm or gun safety in order to prevent incidents of undesired discharges.

To exculpate himself from liability, the respondent contended that the

discharge might have been caused by a mechanical failure; that his service pistol
may have been defective because 9mm FEG Hungary pistols used during their
recent firing course at Camp Crame malfunctioned. This incident at Camp Crame,
however, is barely proof that the respondents pistol is defective. One cannot simply
generalize, based from such incident, that all 9mm FEG Hungary pistols used by
the CA security personnel are defective. To bolster his theory, the respondent
should have presented evidence to show that his service pistol was, at that time, not
mechanically sound, particularly in light of the evidence that the pistol is in good
working condition.

In ruling out mechanical causes, it can only be concluded that the undesired
discharge of the respondents service pistol was the result of his own negligence; in
the usual course of things, a firearm that is being unloaded should not discharge if
gun safety procedures had been strictly followed. What cannot be denied is that the
gun fired and the firing could not have happened unless there was a bullet in the
guns chamber. Assuming that the respondent did indeed remove the magazine and
did indeed cock the gun to eject whatever bullet that might have been in the
chamber, obviously, he simply cocked the gun and did not visually examine if the
chamber was clear. This is a basic and elementary precaution that every gun
handler, more so a security guard who is provided a gun for his duties, should
know.

The next question to be resolved is whether the respondents negligence, in

causing the undesired discharge of his service pistol, is gross in nature. We rule in
the negative.

Simple neglect of duty is defined as the failure of an employee to give

proper attention to a required task or to discharge a duty due to carelessness or
indifference.[14] On the other hand, gross neglect of duty is characterized by want of
even the slightest care, or by conscious indifference to the consequences, or by
flagrant and palpable breach of duty.[15]

We cannot consider the respondents negligence as gross in nature because

there is nothing in the records to show that the respondent willfully and
intentionally fired his service pistol. Also, at the time of the incident, the
respondent did observe most of the safety measures required in unloading his
firearm. As attested to by SG1 Tamba who was the lone eyewitness to the incident,
the respondent did point the pistols muzzle towards a safe direction, i.e., to the
ground, at the time it was being unloaded and when it unexpectedly went off a fact
evidenced by the bullet mark on the floor of the guardhouse.[16]

We also agree with the OCA that the respondent is not liable for conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Although the Revised Uniform Rules
on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service [17] does not provide for a definition or
enumerate acts that constitute such an offense, we held that conduct prejudicial to
the best interest of the service refers to acts or omissions that violate the norm of
public accountability and diminish or tend to diminish the peoples faith in the
Judiciary.[18] Here, we do not find the respondents negligent act to have an adverse
reflection on the Judiciarys integrity.

Under Section 52, Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in

the Civil Service,[19] simple neglect of duty is classified as a less grave offense,
punishable by suspension without pay for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6)
months for the first offense. Considering the respondents performance ratings and
that this is his first offense for simple neglect of duty, we impose upon him the
penalty of suspension in the minimum period.

ACCORDINGLY, premises considered, respondent Enrique E. Manabat,

Jr., Security Guard I of the Court of Appeals, Manila, is SUSPENDED for one (1)
month and one (1) day, without pay, for simple neglect of duty. He is
further DIRECTED to undergo, during his suspension, a firearm handling security
course with the appropriate unit of the Philippine National Police, at his own
expense, and shall be deemed to have completely served his suspension only upon
submission of proof of the completion of this course. He is WARNED that a
repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.

Let a copy of this Resolution be given to the Presiding Justice, Court of

Appeals, Manila, with the suggestion that the firearms and ammunition issued to
the CA security force be technically examined for their mechanical safety and
working order.

SO ORDERED.