Nature. – “Gross negligence is characterized by want of even the slightest care, or by acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently, but wilfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to the consequences, or by flagrant and palpable breach of duty. It denotes a flagrant and culpable refusal or unwillingness of a person to perform a duty.” (Citation omitted)
Gross negligence, thus, involves an element of intent, more than mere carelessness or indifference to do one’s duty. To be held liable for gross negligence, a public official must have intentionally shirked his duty, fully aware that he is duty bound to perform. Simply, gross negligence involves consciously avoiding to do one’s work”[1]
“The gravity of negligence or the character of neglect in the performance of duty is certainly a matter of evidence and will direct the proper sanction to be imposed. On one hand, gross neglect of duty is understood as the failure to give proper attention to a required task or to discharge a duty, characterized by want of even the slightest care, or by conscious indifference to the consequences insofar as other persons may be affected, or by flagrant and palpable breach of duty.”[2] It is the omission of that care which even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to give to their own property. In cases involving public officials, there is gross negligence when a breach of duty is flagrant and palpable. Under the law, this offense warrants the supreme penalty of dismissal from service.[3]
“As compared to Simple Neglect of Duty which is defined as the failure of an employee to give proper attention to a required task or to discharge a duty due to carelessness or indifference, Gross Neglect of Duty is characterized by want of even the slightest care, or by conscious indifference to the consequences, or by flagrant and palpable breach of duty.”[4]
PENALTY
“Under the Revised Rules of Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS), Gross Neglect of Duty, Grave Misconduct, and Serious Dishonesty are grave offenses which merit the penalty of dismissal from service even for the first offense.34 Corollary thereto, such penalty carries with it the following administrative disabilities: (a) cancellation of civil service eligibility; (b) forfeiture of retirement and other benefits, except accrued leave credits, if any; (c) perpetual disqualification from reemployment in any government agency or instrumentality, including any government-owned and controlled corporation or government financial institution; and (d) bar from taking civil service examinations.”[5]
INSTANCES OF GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY
A respondent is held liable for gross neglect of duty when he “held a high position and his repeated failure to scrutinize the supporting documents for the requests for job orders in spite of the tell-title signs of irregularities, i.e., the absence of the signature and certification by the end-users, in complete and flagrant disregard of existing DPWH rules, without an iota of doubt, constitutes gross negligence. Here, the checks and vouchers representing payment for emergency repairs of twenty-seven (27) vehicles were all issued in the name of one payee, Conrado Valdez, who holds the position of Clerk III. The absence of a certification and signature of the actual end-users, which would justify the emergency repair and/or purchase was glaring and should have alerted respondent Arias to look into the subject transactions and conduct further investigation.”[6]
As the PENRO, a respondent’s flagrant and culpable refusal or unwillingness to perform his official duties denoted gross neglect of duty where illegal quarrying had been going on for some time in his area of responsibility. The actions he took were inadequate and could even be probably seen as a conscious way to mask a deliberate and intentional refusal to perform the duties that his position required.[7]
“[Bool]’s failure to detect the error in the surname of former President Arroyo in the 100-Piso bills printed by FCOF, the money spent for the production of the 100-Piso notes containing the misspelled surname of former President Arroyo was put to waste. Worse, the BSP, as well as former President Arroyo, became subjects of public ridicule and embarrassment. Such negligence of [Boo!] could not be compared to the ordinary negligence which other employees may commit as to hold him liable only for Simple Neglect of Duty. As aptly explained by BSP, “[Bool] is not an ordinary person doing an ordinary task in an ordinary place and committing an ordinary mistake with ordinary effects. On the contrary, [Boo!] is the official representative of the BSP; he had gained a certain level of expertise in the printing of banknotes; he was chosen and accepted to be sent to the printer site in France to perform the specialized function of assuring the quality of the proof not of the 100-piso of the Republic of the Philippines.”[8]
As an assistant registration officer, it is respondent’s duty to evaluate the records and marriage registrations that would have the effect of changing one’s civil status, carrying with a multitude of repercussions. Knowing these, she should have exercised more diligence in the performance of her duties.[9]
“Clerks of Court are the custodians of the courts’ “funds and revenues, records, properties, and premises.” They are “liable for any loss, shortage, destruction or impairment” of those entrusted to them. Any shortages in the amounts to be remitted and the delay in the actual remittance “constitute gross neglect of duty for which the clerk of court shall be held administratively liable.” Respondent Acampado committed gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct when she failed to turn over the funds of the Judiciary that were placed in her custody within the period required by law. We said in OCA v. Fueconcillo [585 Phil. 223 (2008)] that undue delay by itself in remitting collections, keeping the amounts, and spending it for the respondent’s “family consumption, and fraudulently withdrawing amounts from the judiciary funds, collectively constitute gross misconduct and gross neglect of duty. Such behaviour should not be tolerated as is denigrates this Court’s image and integrity.”[10]
[1] Trinidad v Office of the Ombudsman and Field Investigation Office, G.R. No. 227440, December 2, 2020
[2] Office of the Court Administrator v. Umblas, A.M No. P-09-2649, August 1, 2017, 833 SCRA 502, 511; and Civil Service Commission v. Rabang, 572 Phil. 316, 322-323 (2008), citing Golangco v. Atty. Fung, 535 Phil. 331, 341 (2006), cited in CSC and OSG v. Catacutan, G.R. 224651, July 3, 2019
[3] Civil Service Commission v. Rabang, 572 Phil. 316, 322-323 (2008), cited in CSC and OSG v. Catacutan, G.R. 224651, July 3, 2019
[4] Court of Appeals v. Manabat, Jr., A.M. No. CA-11-24-P, November 16, 2011, cited in Office of the Court Administrator v Viesca, A.M. No. P-12-3092, April 14, 2015
[5] Office of the Court Administrator v Viesca, A.M. No. P-12-3092, April 14, 2015
[6] Office of the Ombudsman v Fronda and Arias, G.R. no. 211239, April 26, 2021
[7] Office of the Ombudsman v. De Leon, G.R. No. 154083, February 27, 2013
[8] BSP v Bool, G.R. No. 207522, April 18, 2021
[9] Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao v Llauder, G.R. no. 219062, January 29, 2020
[10] A.M. Nos. P-13-3116 and P-13-3112, November 12, 2013, 709 SCRA 254, cited in Office of the Court Administrator v Viesca, A.M. No. P-12-3092, April 14, 2015