G.R. No.: A.M. No. 2014-07-SC; July 8, 2015
Case Parties: RE: REPORT OF ATTY. CARIDAD A. PABELLO, Chief of Office, Office of Administrative Services-Office of the Court Administrator (OAS-OCA), on Neglect of Duty of FERDINAND F. ANDRES, Human Resource Management Officer III, Regional Trial Court (RTC)-Personnel Division, OAS-OCA.

FACTS

Ferdinand F. Andres, Human Resource Management Officer III and Processor-in-Charge of RTC personnel for certain regions, prepared a memorandum report containing a line-up/matrix of applicants for the vacant position of Sheriff IV in the RTC of Imelda, Zamboanga Sibugay, Branch 31. The report listed applicant Guillermo C. Puerto, a Clerk III of the same court, as having a performance rating of “Very Satisfactory” for January to June 2013. Based on this, Puerto was promoted to Sheriff IV via a Selection and Promotions Board for the Lower Courts (SPB-LC) Resolution, with his appointment approved by the Court. He assumed duty on February 3, 2014.
Subsequently, when processing Puerto’s promotional papers for his 201 file, Andres noticed the absence of Puerto’s Performance Rating (PR) form. Upon verification with the rating Clerk of Court, Andres learned Puerto’s actual rating was only “Satisfactory,” not “Very Satisfactory.” Under the Merit Selection and Promotion Plan for the Lower Courts (MSPP-LC), a “Very Satisfactory” rating is required for promotion, meaning Puerto was disqualified. Andres submitted an undated incident report to his superior, Atty. Caridad A. Pabello, admitting he committed a “big mistake/negligence” by using an old memorandum file from his computer and overwriting it with new entries without accurately checking it, leading to the erroneous report. He apologized and accepted the consequences.
Separately, Clerk IV Louieline M. Ednaco reported that the record book “Task Force Plantilla” showed Puerto’s performance rating had been tampered with, altered from “Satisfactory” (score 21) to “Very Satisfactory” (score 31). Atty. Pabello reported these issues—Andres’s negligence and the alleged tampering—to the Court Administrator. Consequently, the SPB-LC recommended the revocation of Puerto’s promotion and the re-posting of the vacancy, which was approved.
The Office of Administrative Services-Supreme Court (OAS-SC) investigated and recommended finding Andres guilty of simple neglect of duty. It found insufficient evidence to prove he tampered with the record book. Considering his almost 18 years of service, lack of bad faith, and first offense, the OAS-SC recommended a penalty of suspension for one month and one day without pay.

ISSUE

Whether Ferdinand F. Andres should be held administratively liable for simple neglect of duty and for the alleged tampering (erroneous recording, erasure, and alteration) of the performance rating in the record book.

RULING

The Court concurred with the OAS-SC’s findings but modified the penalty.
1. On Simple Neglect of Duty: Andres was found GUILTY of simple neglect of duty. As the processor-in-charge, his primary task was to check and verify applicant information meticulously. He failed to note the absence of Puerto’s PR form in the list of lacking requirements and erroneously reported the performance rating as “Very Satisfactory” instead of “Satisfactory.” This negligence directly led to Puerto’s improper promotion. Simple neglect of duty is defined as the failure to give proper attention to a required task due to carelessness or indifference, violating the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel which mandates diligence in official duties. His excuses of “human error” and heavy workload were not acceptable justifications.
2. On the Alleged Tampering: The Court EXONERATED Andres of the charge of tampering with the record book. The records contained insufficient evidence to prove he made the erasures and alterations.
3. Penalty: Simple neglect of duty is a less grave offense punishable by suspension of one month and one day to six months for the first offense under civil service rules. However, the Court considered mitigating circumstances: Andres readily admitted his mistake, apologized, accepted the consequences, and had a long service record with no prior administrative infraction. Therefore, the Court exercised discretion to mitigate the penalty. Instead of suspension, the penalty was reduced to a REPRIMAND, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense would be dealt with more severely.