G.R. No. 194368 ; April 2, 2013
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Petitioner, vs. ARLIC ALMOJUELA, Respondent.

FACTS

The case arose from the escape of detention prisoner Tony Lao from the Makati City Jail on December 13, 2003. Respondent SJO2 Arlic Almojuela was the Desk Officer/Supervisor on the third shift custodial duty when the escape occurred. Testimonies and evidence indicated that Lao was seen outside his cell around 11:30 PM, conversing with inmates and jail personnel, including at the Desk Area where Almojuela was posted. Lao was later seen using the cellphone of JO1 Pascual, one of the guards. Between 1:00 to 1:30 AM, Almojuela’s househelp overheard JO1 Pascual negotiating over the phone for additional money before “ilabas” (taking out) someone. She later saw JO1 Loyola walk towards the gate with a man, returning alone minutes later. Almojuela claimed he left his post at 1:20 AM and returned at 1:30 AM, but another officer testified he was absent from 1:00 AM to 3:00 AM. By 3:30 AM, Almojuela was found sleeping on a chair, and control gates were open. Lao’s escape was discovered around 5:30 AM. A subsequent search recovered 10 keys from Almojuela’s barracks, one matching the padlock of the main gate. Polygraph tests on Almojuela and JO1 Pascual indicated “deceptions.” The BJMP Investigation Report concluded that Almojuela and other officers colluded to facilitate the escape. In the administrative case, the BJMP hearing officer found Almojuela guilty of Grave Misconduct and dismissed him from service. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) affirmed this decision. The Court of Appeals (CA) later modified the ruling, finding Almojuela guilty only of Gross Neglect of Duty and imposing a one-year suspension without pay. The CSC appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in modifying the finding of Grave Misconduct to Gross Neglect of Duty and in imposing the penalty of one-year suspension without pay instead of dismissal.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition. It REVERSED and SET ASIDE the amended decision of the Court of Appeals and REINSTATED Civil Service Commission Resolution No. 080701, which found respondent Arlic Almojuela guilty of GRAVE MISCONDUCT and imposed the penalty of DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE.
The Court held that the CA erred in reclassifying the offense. The elements of Grave Misconduct are present: a wrongful intention, a transgression of established rules (in this case, BJMP rules on custodial duty and inmate control), and corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules. Almojuela’s actions—including leaving his post unattended, sleeping on duty, failing to secure the jail premises and prevent inmate movement, and possessing an unauthorized key to the main gate—demonstrated a flagrant, conscious, and intentional disregard of his duties as Desk Officer/Supervisor, which directly facilitated the escape. This constituted Grave Misconduct, not mere Gross Neglect of Duty. Under Section 52(A)(3) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, Grave Misconduct is a grave offense punishable by dismissal for the first offense. The penalty of dismissal is mandatory. The Court found no reason to deviate from this penalty, as Almojuela’s breach of duty was severe and contributed to a serious breach of public trust.