AM 2004 15 SC; (November, 2006) (Digest)
A.M. No. 2004-15-SC. November 16, 2006. PROSECUTOR AGAPITO B. ROSALES, Complainant, vs. ENGR. CELERINO BUENAVENTURA, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Agapito B. Rosales, the Provincial Prosecutor of Camarines Sur, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Engineer Celerino A. Buenaventura, the Head of the Maintenance Section of the Hall of Justice in Naga City. The complaint alleged that respondent grossly neglected his duty by failing, despite repeated written requests, to perform preventive maintenance and necessary repairs on four air conditioning units in the Hall of Justice. This prolonged inaction caused the units to malfunction and stop functioning altogether for almost a year, resulting in extreme discomfort for office occupants and the transacting public.
In his defense, respondent did not deny receiving the requests but offered an explanation. He claimed the breakdown was due to the “unwise observance of their proper use” by the occupants. He further argued that the building had good natural ventilation and that the government actually saved money on electricity consumption while the units were inoperative.
ISSUE
Whether or not respondent Engr. Celerino A. Buenaventura is administratively liable for his failure to act on the repeated requests for maintenance and repair of the air conditioning units.
RULING
Yes, the respondent is administratively liable for Simple Neglect of Duty. The Court found the respondent’s explanation unacceptable and sustained the findings and recommendation of the investigating officer, Atty. Eden T. Candelaria. The legal logic is clear: respondent’s core duty, as defined under the Guidelines on the Occupancy, Use, Operation and Maintenance of the Halls of Justice, was to take charge of preventive maintenance and minor repairs and to report major breakdowns. His admitted inaction constituted a direct breach of this duty.
The Court rejected his justification that the government saved money. The duty to maintain was ministerial and not discretionary based on perceived savings. The purpose of installing the units was for their use, and regular maintenance was a necessary incident to preserve government property. His failure to act, which led to the complete breakdown of the units, ultimately caused more financial damage to the government than any temporary savings from non-use, as the units were left to deteriorate. This indifference or carelessness in performing an expected task fits the definition of simple neglect of duty. As a first offense, and considering the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases, the Court imposed a penalty of suspension for thirty-five (35) days without pay, with a stern warning.