GR 227440; (December, 2020) (Digest)
G.R. No. 227440, December 02, 2020
RICARDO O. TRINIDAD, JR., PETITIONER, VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Petitioner Ricardo O. Trinidad, Jr., an Engineer II with the DPWH, was tasked to oversee laborers under the Oyster Program. He signed the daily time records (DTRs) of four laborers for April and May 2005. An investigation later revealed that these individuals were simultaneously employed with and receiving compensation from other government agencies during the same period, constituting double or triple compensation.
The Office of the Ombudsman found Trinidad guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty and imposed the penalty of dismissal. It ruled that his sole reliance on a logbook maintained by a subordinate, without personal verification of the laborers’ attendance, constituted a wanton attitude and gross lack of precaution. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.
ISSUE
Whether Trinidad’s act of signing the DTRs based solely on his subordinate’s logbook constitutes gross negligence warranting the penalty of dismissal.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the finding of gross negligence but modified the penalty. The Court clarified that its review under Rule 45 is generally confined to errors of law, and it found no reason to disturb the factual findings of the Ombudsman and the CA that Trinidad relied exclusively on the logbook.
The Court rejected Trinidad’s defense of good faith reliance on his subordinate, citing the precedent in Arias v. Sandiganbayan. The Court distinguished the case, noting that Arias involved a department head supervising voluminous documents in a criminal context. In contrast, Trinidad’s duty involved supervising only four workers for two months, making personal verification feasible. His failure to exercise even a minimal degree of diligence in ensuring the workers actually reported for duty constituted inexcusable negligence.
However, the Court modified the penalty. Applying the doctrine that the penalty should be commensurate to the offense, and considering the absence of dishonest intent or personal gain, the Court held that the negligence was simple, not gross. Gross negligence requires a want of even slight care, which was not sufficiently established. Consequently, the penalty was reduced from dismissal to a fine equivalent to six months’ salary, with a stern warning.