Topic Title Date Author

Simple Neglect of Re: Report of Atty. July 8, 2015 Famor

Duty Pabello
Issuance of Writs by Robles v. Maog July 1, 2015 Alga
Clerks of Courts
Administrative Rules Cawad v. Abad July 28, 2015 Ligan
and Regulations
Illegal Disbursement Silang v. COA September 8, 2015 Largo
of Funds
COMELEC: Effect of Legaspi v. COMELEC September 1, 2015 Cesista
failure to reach votes
after rehearing
Simple Neglect of Atty. Sanglay v. July 1, 2015 Cabradilla
Duty Padua
Neglect of Duty OCA v. Lizondra July 1, 2015 Cabradilla
Naturalization Republic v. Karbasi July 29, 2015 Maurillo
COMELEC Lico v. COMELEC September 29, 2015 Yap
HRET Lico v. COMELEC September 29, 2015 Yap
Doctrine of Primary SMPI v. BF Homes August 5, 2015 Pabuaya
Jurisdiction;
Exceptions
Simple Neglect of Angat v. GSIS July 29, 2015 Meneses
Duty and Simple
Misconduct

RE: Report of Atty. Caridad A. Pabello, A.M. No. 2014-07-SC, 8 July 2015, First
Division, Perlas-Bernabe.

Simple Neglect of Duty

This is a case against Andres, Human Resource Management Officer III, RTC-
Personnel Division, OAS-OCA, which stemmed from a Memorandum of Atty. Pabello, Chief of
Office, OAS-OCA, referring to the OAS-SC for investigation, report, and recommendation the
negligence of Andres in reflecting in the line-up/matrix of applicants for the vacant position of
Sheriff IV in the RTC of Imelda, Zamboanga Sibugay, Branch 31, the wrong performance
rating of Puerto who applied for the said position, albeit disqualified.

As processor-in-charge of appointment, Andres had a primary task to check and verify

the information given by applicants for any vacant position in the RTC and, thereafter, prepare
the necessary reports for his supervisors. Andres was clearly remiss and negligent in
performing his assigned tasks as a processor-in-charge, and is guilty of simple neglect of
duty, 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."

Melquiades Robles vs COC Duke Thaddeus Maog, et al

A.M.No. P-15-3304 July 1, 2015, First Division, Perez

Issuance of Writs by Clerks of Courts

Upon the issuance of WPI, Clerk of Court Maog included a clarificatory phrase instead of just
quoting the dispositive portion of the order issued by the Judge. He was suspended for one
month. He filed an MR.
Under Sec.4 of Rule 136 if ROC, issuance of writs by COC does not involve the exercise of
functions appertaining to the judge. If there is a need to clarify an order, clarification may be
done only through an amended order issued by the judge. Maog indeed is liable for arrogating
unto himself a function which is reserved for the members of the bench. Be that as it
may,there are circumstances which would justify the temperamence of the suspension such
as: he was barely five months as COC, he acted with good faith, and the challenged writ had
become final for over four years. Penalty of reprimand is instead imposed.

Gil G. Cawad et.al. vs. Florencio B. Abad et.al., G.R. No. 207145, July 28, 2015; En
Banc-Peralta

Administrative Rules and Regulations

RA No. 7305, otherwise known as The Magna Carta of Public Health Workers was signed into
law in granting health workers allowances and benefits. DBM and CSC issued a Joint Circular
to prescribe the rules on the grant of Step Increments due to meritorious performance and
Step Increment due to length of service. Valid?

Administrative regulations enacted by administrative agencies to implement and interpret the

law are entitled to great respect, unless and until exceed the bounds of law.

1)lowers the hazard pay at rates below the minimum prescribed under the law. (invalid)

2)provides that an official or employee authorized to be granted Longevity Pay under an

existing law is not eligible for the grant of Step Increment Due to Length of Service.
(unenforceable)

-created new impositions.

3)provides for the qualification of actual exposure to danger for the PHW's entitlement to
hazard pay, subsistence allowance, and the entitlement to longevity (valid)

-did not modify, amend nor supplant the Revised IRR. Interpretative regulations need not be
published nor filed with the UP Law Center - ONAR in order to be effective neither is prior
hearing or consultation mandatory.

Faustino A. Silang, et al vs Commission on Audit

G.R. No. 213189. September 8, 2015, En Banc, Perlas-Bernabe.

Illegal Disbursement of Funds

Petitioners passed 2 Ordinances appropriating payment of the Collective Negotiation

Agreement Incentive to their rank-and-file employees, members of UNGKAT. COA suspended
the payment because of non-registration of the CNA with the Civil Service Commission. The
Mayor argued that its non-registration was not a bar to the payment of the CNA Incentives.
Correct?

NO. DBM Budget Circular No. 2006-01 clearly requires accreditation with the CSC for the
purpose of collective negotiations prior to the grant of CNA Incentives.
The Mayor, the local Sanggunian members, together with the UNGKAT officers and members
of the Board of Directors who participated in the negotiations of its approval despite
knowledge of UNGKAT's non-accreditation at the time, are SOLIDARILY LIABLE to refund
the disallowed benefits.

The rank-and-file employees need not refund such disallowed amount. In Lumayna v. COA,
the Court declared that notwithstanding the disallowance of benefits by COA, the affected
personnel who received the said benefits in good faith should not refund the disallowed
benefits.

Feliciano Legaspi v. COMELEC, Germar and Santos, GR No. 216572, 1 September

2015, En Banc, Perez.

COMELEC: Effect of failure to reach votes after rehearing

Petitioner was a mayoralty candidate who filed a petition for disqualification against his
opponent after being declared the winner. The COMELEC Division voted in favor of Petitioner
but the COMELEC en banc, on MR and after rehearing, did not reach the required votes (4) to
disqualify Germar. What is the effect of failure to reach such votes?

If the action is originally commenced in the COMELEC, it shall be dismissed;

In appealed cases, the judgment or order appealed from shall stand affirmed; or
In incidental matters, the petition or motion shall be denied. The COMELEC en banc did
not err when it dismissed the electoral aspect of the case when it was unable to reach a
majority vote after the rehearing as the case was originally filed before COMELEC. The
phrase "originally commenced in the commission" covers actions that are filed at the first
instance, before the COMELEC—whether sitting in division or en banc—as contradistinguished
from cases that are merely appealed to it.

Atty. Aurora P. Sanglay vs Eduardo Padua II, Sheriff IV, A.M. No. P-14-3182, July
2015, Second Division, Carpio, A.

Simple Neglect of Duty

Will failure to render a report on a writ of execution issued almost two years ago
constitute simple negligence to make a sheriff liable administratively?

Yes. Under the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service
simple neglect of duty is defined as the failure of an employee to give attention to a task
expected of him and signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference.
Such is considered a less grave offense. Padua’s failure to render a report for almost two years
despite mandatory character of his task to do so every 30 days until the writ is fully satisfied
warrants a fine equal to his 1-month salary and a stern warning that repetition of a similar
offense would be dealt with more severely.

Office of the Court Administrator vs Beatriz Lizondra, A.M. No. P-12-3101, July 2015,
Second Division, Carpio, A.

Neglect of Duty

Will a Clerk of Court’s failure to deposit judiciary collections on time on account of lack
of money for transportation constitute neglect of duty?

Yes. SC Admin Circular 3-2000, Circular No. 13-92 and 50-95 mandate that clerks of
court immediately deposit the funds they receive in the authorized government depositories.
Delay in remittances deprives the court of the interest it could have earned had the money
been deposited on time, hence such constitutes neglect of duty.

Lack of funds for transportation is not a valid excuse as under Admin Circular 35-2004
accountable officers are authorized to reimburse their expenses. Lizondra was fined Php
10,000.00 and sternly warned that repetition of same offense will be dealt with more severely.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. KAMRAN F. KARBASI, G.R. No. 210412, July 29,
2015, SECOND DIVISION; Mendoza, J.

Naturalization

Karbasi filed a petition for naturalization alleging that: He is recognized as a Person of

Concern by the UNCHR, his trade or occupation is a repair technician, he derives an average
annual income of Php 80,000.00. The OSG countered that he failed to show that Iran grants
reciprocal rights of naturalization to Filipinos and that Karbasi failed to establish his lucrative.
Should his petition be granted?

Yes. It is enough that the court be satisfied that there’s reasonable assurance that the
applicant will not be a social burden or liability and that he is a potential asset to the country.
From a refugee who had nothing he refused to be the object of charity by working hard to
graduate. True, the Naturalization Law disqualifies foreign citizens whose laws don’t grant
Filipinos the same rights but as a refugee, the country's obligations under its international
commitments come into operation like the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees
where Philippines must facilitate the assimilation and naturalization of refugees.

Atty. Isidro Lico, et al. v. Comelec, G.R. No. 205505, September 29, 2015; En Banc,
Sereno, J.

COMELEC

There were two rival factions within the Ating Koop Partylist lead by Lico and Rimas. Pursuant
to an amendment to the party’s constitution and by-laws, both factions held separate
meetings to elect a new set of officers. When brought to the Comelec to resolve which group
legitimately represents the partylist, Comelec decided in favor of the Rimas group. Was
Comelec correct?

No. While the Comelec can rule on questions of party identity and leadership as an incident of
its enforcement powers, it committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling for Rimas. Ating Koop
never registered the amendments to the constitution and by-laws with the Comelec,
invalidating the elections held by the two groups. Party lists owe their existence to the State
and amendments to by-laws must be approved by the state’s agent, Comelec. SC ruled that
the party’s Interim Central Committee who was in charge before the amendments are
considered to hold the legitimate leadership of the party in a “hold-over capacity,” since the
by-laws do not prohibit it.

Atty. Isidro Lico, et al. v. Comelec En Banc and Ating Koop Partylist represented by
Amparo T. Rimas, G.R. No. 205505, September 29, 2015; En Banc, Sereno, J.

HRET
Lico is Ating Koop’s first nominee to Congress. One year after Lico assumed office, the
partylist’s Interim Central Committee expelled him from the party for disloyalty, malversation
and etc. Respondent Rimas sought to have Lico removed from Congress. The Comelec En
Banc ruled it had no jurisdiction to expel Congressman Lico because his expulsion from the
partylist affected his qualifications, therefore it is the HRET which has jurisdiction.

The HRET can expel Lico from the House of Representatives and can rule on the validity of
Lico’s expulsion from the party. The Constitution states that the HRET is the sole judge of all
contests involving the qualifications of the members of the House of Representatives. Bona
fide membership in the party-list is a continuing qualification, which must be possessed during
the entire tenure of the official. Lico’s expulsion from Ating Koop necessarily affects his title as
a member of Congress, a matter within the purview of the HRET.

San Miguel Properties, Inc. (SMPI) v. BF Homes, Inc., G.R. No. 169343, 5 August
2015, First Division, Leonardo-De Castro.

Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction; Exceptions

SMPI bought 130 subdivision lots from BF Homes. BF Homes refused to deliver the TCTs
for 20 of the 130 lots, alleging that the Deeds of Absolute Sale were entered into by the
receiver without authority, as his appointment was previously revoked by SEC. A complaint for
specific performance was filed; however, it was suspended by the HLURB pending resolution
by the SEC on the authority of the receiver. On appeal to the CA, the appellate court
remanded the case to the HLURB. Was the CA correct?

The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and the corollary doctrine of primary
admit of exceptions such as where the judicial intervention is urgent or when strong public
interest is involved. In this case, the contractual relationship between the parties is undeniably
imbued with public interest. As held in the case of Sps. Chua v. Ang, public interest and
welfare are involved in subdivision and condominium development as shelter is a basic human
need whose fulfillment cannot afford any kind of delay.

Glenda Rodriguez-Angat v. GSIS, GR. No. 204738, 29 July 2015, Third Division,
Villarama

Simple Neglect of Duty and Simple Misconduct

A salary loan was tagged as fully paid in the GSIS database despite an unpaid balance.
The computer Terminal ID used in tagging belonged to Petitioner but the User ID used
belonged to another. Allowing another User ID to access one’s computer terminal is prohibited
under an office regulation. Petitioner was charged with Simple Neglect of Duty and Violation of
Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations. May Petitioner be held guilty of Grave Misconduct
instead?

No. To qualify petitioner's acts as grave, there must be clear and convincing evidence
that such was done due to corruption, willful intent to violate the law or persistent disregard of
well-known legal rules. Absent these qualifying circumstances, a clear violation of an office
regulation only results to Simple Misconduct. Thus, petitioner is guilty of Violation of Simple
Neglect of Duty and Simple Misconduct.