G.R. No.: A.M. No. CA-11-24-P; November 16, 2011 (Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 10-163-CA-P)
Case Title: Court of Appeals, by: Coc Teresita R. Marigomen, Complainant, vs. Enrique E. Manabat, Jr., Security Guard I, Court of Appeals, Manila, Respondent.

FACTS

On June 8, 2009, respondent Enrique E. Manabat, Jr., a Security Guard I (SG1) at the Court of Appeals (CA) in Manila, accidentally fired his issued 9mm FEG Hungary service pistol inside the CA guardhouse while unloading it for turnover to the next shift guard, SG1 Miguel Tamba. The CA Security Services Unit Chief recommended dismissal for gross neglect of duty. The CA Clerk of Court, Atty. Teresita R. Marigomen, formally charged the respondent with gross neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. In his defense, the respondent claimed the discharge was purely accidental, done without bad faith, and caused no injury. He asserted he followed safety procedures by pointing the muzzle at the ground, as attested by SG1 Tamba, and suggested the pistol might have been defective, citing malfunctions of similar models during a recent firing course at Camp Crame. The CA Clerk of Court, after investigation, found him not guilty of the charged offenses but liable for simple neglect of duty, recommending a one-month and one-day suspension without pay. The CA Presiding Justice adopted this recommendation. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) agreed with the finding of simple neglect of duty, noting the absence of gross negligence elements and that the act did not constitute conduct prejudicial to the service. The OCA cited the respondent’s prior infractions (reprimand for discourtesy in 1999, stern reprimand for unprofessional behavior in 2001, and one-month suspension for habitual absenteeism in 2005) but considered his very satisfactory performance ratings and that this was his first offense for simple neglect.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Enrique E. Manabat, Jr. is administratively liable for gross neglect of duty and/or conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, or for a lesser offense, due to the accidental firing of his service firearm.

RULING

The Court found respondent Enrique E. Manabat, Jr. administratively liable for simple neglect of duty, not gross neglect or conduct prejudicial to the service. The Court ruled that the accidental discharge resulted from the respondent’s negligence, specifically his failure to visually inspect the chamber to ensure it was clear after removing the magazine and cocking the gun, a basic safety precaution. The Court rejected his claim of a defective pistol due to lack of evidence, noting testimony that the same firearm had been in good working condition when issued to others. The negligence was not deemed gross because there was no showing of willful intent or conscious indifference; the respondent had observed some safety measures, such as pointing the muzzle in a safe direction. The act did not amount to conduct prejudicial to the service as it did not violate public accountability or diminish faith in the Judiciary. Applying the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, simple neglect of duty is a less grave offense. Considering his satisfactory performance and that this was his first offense of this nature, the Court imposed the minimum penalty. The respondent is SUSPENDED for one (1) month and one (1) day without pay, ORDERED to undergo a firearm handling security course at his own expense during suspension, and WARNED that repetition will be dealt with more severely. The Court also suggested the CA have its security force’s firearms technically examined.