(Part 7) En Banc Cases Penned by Justice Hernando; Bangko Sentral v. COA [G.R. No. 207522, April 18, 2021]

The Supreme Court upholds the dismissal of a BSP representative for carelessly allowing the wrong president's name to be printed on currency

The Antecedents:

🔗 https://pslk.net/tn4ecs2y

SC rulings:

Gross neglect of duty is a grave offense under Section 52 (A) (2), Rule IV19 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (Uniform Rules). The Uniform Rules prescribe the penalty of dismissal from service for gross neglect of duty even if committed for the first time.

Ads.

Take caution when riding. A woman has piled onto the bike.

SHOP HERE

Section 46 (A)(2), Rule 1020 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (Revised Rules) similarly classified gross neglect of duty as a grave offense. However, Section 53, Rule IV21 of the Uniform Rules recognized the application of mitigating, aggravating, or alternative circumstances in the imposition of administrative penalties.

Notably, both provisions do not expressly state that mitigating, aggravating, or alternative circumstances should not be considered when the prescribed penalty for the administrative offense is an indivisible penalty, such as dismissal from the service.

Duque III v. Veloso (Duque) sheds light on this issue:

It is true that Section 53, Rule IV of the Uniform Rules provides the application of mitigating, aggravating or alternative circumstances in the imposition of administrative penalties. Section 53, Rule IV applies only when clear proof is shown, using the specific standards set by law and jurisprudence, that the facts in a given case justify the mitigation of the prescribed penalty.

Duque further instructs:

"In appreciating the presence of mitigating, aggravating or alternative circumstances to a given case, two constitutional principles come into play which the Court is tasked to balance. The first is public accountability which requires the Court to consider the improvement of public service, and the preservation of the public's faith and confidence in the government by ensuring that only individuals who possess good moral character, integrity and competence are employed in the government service. The second relates to social justice which gives the Court discretionary leeway to lessen the harsh effects of the wrongdoing committed by an offender for equitable and humanitarian consideration." (End of emphasis).

Length of service is an alternative circumstance that can either be considered as mitigating or aggravating depending on the factual milieu of each case. It is "not a magic word that, once invoked, will automatically be considered as a mitigating circumstance in favor of the party invoking it." The Court has applied the alternative circumstance of length of service differently through the years:

"In University of the Philippines v. Civil Service Commission, the Court did not consider therein private respondent's length of service as a mitigating circumstance since it was her length of service, among others, that earned her the position she was in and through which she illicitly allowed her relatives to enjoy unmerited privileges, like an unwarranted diploma. In short, the length of service helped facilitate private respondent's commission of the offense.

Length of service cannot also be considered as a mitigating circumstance when the offense committed is found to be serious. In Yuson v. Noel, respondent judge was found guilty of abusing his office when he misappropriated the amount deposited with him in settlement of the judgment debt. The Court held that the mere length of his service for 10 years could not mitigate the gravity of his offense or the penalty he deserves.

The above-cited cases, as applied to the case at bar, show that length of service cannot be considered as a mitigating circumstance when the length of respondent's service itself helped facilitate the commission of the offense, which is found to be grave or serious."

In this case, the Court agrees with the BSP that it was precisely because of Bool's length of service and experience that he was chosen as BSP's representative to France. It was in consideration of his extensive experience, special skills, and relevant expertise that he acquired by reason of his long years of service with the BSP that Bool was chosen for the highly technical work abroad. The CSC correctly held that the fact that Bool had been in the service for 33 years should have made him "more meticulous and prudent in discharging his responsibility."

Moreover, the offense committed is so gross, grave, and serious in character as to endanger or threaten the public welfare. The CSC is correct in holding that the repercussions and the impact resulting from Bool's negligence in not detecting the error in former President Arroyo's surname are so great.

Good faith is ordinarily used to describe that state of mind denoting honesty of intention and freedom from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put the holder upon inquiry; an honest intention to abstain from taking unconscientious advantage of another, even through technicalities of law, together with absence of all information, notice, or benefit or belief of facts which render [a] transaction unconscientious. In short, good faith is actually a question of intention. Although this is something internal, we can ascertain a person's intention not from his own protestation of good faith, which is self-serving, hut from evidence of his conduct and outward acts. (End of emphasis).

Section 52 (A) (2), Rule IV of the Uniform Rules and Section 46 (A) (2), Rule 10 of the Revised Rules clearly state that the grave offense of gross neglect of duty is punishable by dismissal, even if committed for the first time.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is GRANTED. The January 21, 2013 Decision and the May 20, 2013 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 123467 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision and Resolution of the Civil Service Commission finding respondent Nelson C. Bool guilty of gross neglect of duty and imposing the penalty of dismissal from the service, with the accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirements benefits, and perpetual disqualification for reemployment in the government service, for gross neglect of duty, are hereby REINSTATED with the MODIFICATION that Bool is entitled to receive the monetary equivalent of his accrued leave credits, if any.

Read the full decision here:

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2021aprildecisions.php?id=511

-------------------------------

Dear Loyal supporters:

All of our articles/case digest etc include advertisement links (Lazada/Shopee). You can help us keep our pages running by clicking on those links and purchasing our sponsored products.

We sincerely appreciate your support in our Pages.

- #Admin

🛒: Shopee: https://bit.ly/3k3zUzl

🛒: Lazada: https://bit.ly/3YBZUkj

Follow our

🛒 Shopple store 🔗 https://shopple.co/Lex-curiae

for more amazing products!

----------------------------------

🛒 https://shopple.co/Lex-curiae

▶️ https://youtube.com/@attyphiljuris

🌐 https://bit.ly/m/AttyEblogger

🛩️ https://t.me/phiLJuris