Digest: Escaño v. Manaois (809 SCRA 16, 2016)

Facts: an administrative case was filed against respondent Adrian P. Manaois (Manaois) initiated by complainant Ma. Rosario R. Escaño (Escaño) in her Complaint-Affidavit dated February 25, 2015 for grossly disrespectful behavior, discourtesy in the course of official duties, gross insubordination, knowingly making false statements against co-employees, being notoriously undesirable, neglect in the performance. of duty, failure to act promptly on letters and requests, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

 

Issue: Whether or not Manaois is guilty of simple neglect of duty, discourtesy in the course of official duties, frequent unauthorized absences, and being notoriously undesirable

 

Ruling: We agree with the findings of the hearing committee that Manaois is guilty of simple neglect of duty, discourtesy in the course of official duties, frequent unauthorized absences, and being notoriously undesirable.

Simple Neglect of Duty

Neglect of duty is the failure of an employee to give one's attention to a task expected of him.^[62] Section 1, Canon IV of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel commands court personnel to perform their official duties properly and dilligently at all times. Since the image of the courts, as the administrators and dispensers of justice, is not only reflected in their decisions, resolutions or orders but also mirrored in the conduct of court personnel, it is incumbent upon every court personnel to observe the highest degree of efficiency and competency in his or her assigned tasks. The failure to meet these standards warrants the imposition of administrative sanctions

 

Frequent Unauthorized Absences. We agree with the recommendations of the hearing committee. Manaois' unauthorized absences and loafing during office hours are impermissible. Due to the nature and functions of their office, officials and employees of the judiciary must be role models in the faithful observance of the constitutional canon that public office is a public trust. Inherent in this mandate is the observance of the prescribed office hours and efficient use of every moment for public service, if only to recompense the government, and ultimately, the people who shoulder the cost of maintaining the judiciary. Thus, to inspire public respect for the justice system, court officials and employees are, at all times, behooved to strictly observe official time

 

Notorious Undesirability.  In determining whether an employee is notoriously undesirable, the CSC prescribes a two-fold test: (1) whether it is common knowledge or generally known as universally believed to be true or manifest to the world that the employee committed the acts imputed against him; and (2) whether he had contracted the habit for any of the enumerated misdemeanors.^[84] We are satisfied that Manaois' general reputation within the HRD as someone who is quarrelsome and difficult to work with, in addition to his history of rude and discourteous conduct towards his supervisors, adequately show that he is notoriously undesirable. Manaois' actions have been substantiated and corroborated by the testimonies of the witnesses presented during the investigation.

An employee who cannot get along with his co-employees and superiors can upset and strain the working environment and is therefore detrimental to institution.^[85] Such instance calls for us to exercise our prerogative to take the necessary action to correct the situation and protect the judiciary.

 

Section 50 of the same Rules provides that if the respondent is found guilty of two or more charges or counts, the penalty to be imposed should be that corresponding to the most serious charge and the rest shall be considered as aggravating. In this case, the most serious charge for which we find Manaois guilty of is the grave offense of being notoriously undesirable, which is punishable by dismissal from service.