Republic ofthe Philippines ADAJAR, Osear L. Number:__ 180426 Re: Simple Neglect of Duty are (Appeal) Promulgated: | 9 AUG 2018 (D1720006318) DECISION Oscar L. Adajar, Storekee City, Bukidnon, through counsel, files an Appeal from the Decision dated November 17, 2017 and Order dated December 29. 2017 issued by General Manager (GM) Juanito C. Aroa, MCWD, finding him guilty of Simple Negiect of Duty for the second time and dismissing him from the service with all its accessory penalties, and denying his Motion for Reconsideration. cr B, Malaybalay City Water District (MCWD), Malaybalay respectively Pertinent portions of the Decision dated November 17, 2017 of GM Aroa read, as follows: “The respondent having failed to release items to the plumbers after presentation of Store Requisition Slip Nos. 05-15-214, 05-15-29] and 5-15- 245 showed that the Storeroom, being overseen by respondent, has no more ‘available stocks for inventory items. Such circumstance is an offshoot of his failure to perform his bounden duty to monitor the stocks and prepare purchase request as provided for in his position description form. xxx Witness for the prosecution, Ms, Lynel Galleros, testified that it was ‘not only a part of the task of the respondent to prepare Purchase Request (PR) Form in the materials and supplies acquisition of the office as provided in the CSC Position Description Form of the respondent but also as mandated in page 98 of the Commercial Practices Manual for Water Districts (Volume 2) which provides that the storekeeper should prepare purchase requisition for regular items reaching their re-ordering. point. ‘Such provision is in harmony with enumeration No. 5 of the duties of respondent as can be gleaned in his position description form which he failed to refute at the course of the formal investigation. As shown, the only evidence proffered by the respondent is his 2014 Individual Performance Commitment Review which was not given weight by the investigating committee on the ground of immateriality and irrelevancy it being that the period in question is 2013, not 2014. Hence, reference was made ‘appropriately in his 2015 individual Performance Commitment Review. Bawat Kawani, Lingkod Bayani "ESC Bang IB Road Bateson ll, 16 Quezon Cy WF (2) 931-7935/02) 931-7939702) 931-809) GQRPRTCGSTPH wwZCBOVDAADAJAR, Oscar L. Page 2 of 10 “Further, the purchase requests presented by the prosecution as annexes 'C’ and ‘D’ both signed by the respondent confirmed that he gave his assent to the function purchase request preparation for the 1st semester of 2015, the period in question. xxx “WHEREFORE, adopting the recommendation of the Ad Hoc Investigation Committee, the Disciplining Authority, Malaybalay City Water District finds respondent GUILTY of Simple Neglect of Duty for the second time anid is meted the penalty of dismissal from the service, with all inherent and accessory penalties under the Rules of Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RACCS). In his Appeal, Adajar interposed the following arguments: xxx “Respondent Oscar Adajar explained during trial that the duty to prepare PR's was not listed in his 2014 IPCR because of the verbal instruction of his immediate superior, finance and administration division head Engr. Rey Isidore T. Gayon. Accordingly, he was made to understand that such duty will be transferred to the BAC Secretariat starting 2014 10 conform to the proper procurement rules. xxx Consequently, the effect of the questioned non-preparation of PR's in 2014 would naturally be felt in 2015, not in 2014, because there were presumably enough supplies and materials in storage as of the end of 2014 ‘and depletion became manifest only in 2015. In other words, the shortage, if any, of supplies would be manifest only in 2015, not in 2014, “The duty of the Storekeeper to monitor supplies and materials consists of ensuring that the items in storage are secured, intact, safe, and free from pilferage. It does not include the duty to determine the needs of ‘every end-user in the MCWD for it is beyond his competence to handle. His being the Storekeeper does not make him the end-user of the supplies and materials he keeps xxx “As shown in the 1999 Decision, respondent's act consisted only of having been absent from work in the morning of May 3, 1999, and undertimeAPADAJAR, Oscar L. Page 3 of 10 or was absent again in the afiernoon of that day because he drank beer with his brother-in-law in his house. xxx “Granting for the sake of argument that respondent's act in 1999 is administratively actionable, the closest offense that respondent may have committed in 1999 was either absenteeism, tardiness, or drunkenness, not neglect of duty. xxx “Such being the case. it is submitted that respondent did not actually commit an offense in 1999, but was erroneously and unfairly found to be guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty, and therefore has not commitied a second offense in 2015 because the acts complained of in the 1999 Decision did not constitute acts of Simple Neglect of Duty.” The case arose when Engr. Mary Jane Flores, Manager, Engineering and Production Division, issued a Letter dated May 13, 2015 informing Engr. Rey Isidore Gayon, Manager. Administration/Finance Division, that several inventory supplies and materials for maintenance activities and installation of new service connections were no longer available in the stockroom administered by Adajar. Flores recommended that an emergency purchase be made on said inventory supplies and materials which are urgently needed in the operation of the water district. Gayon issued a Memorandum directing Adajar to explain his side on the unavailability of inventory items mentioned in said letter. Adajar timely submitted his explanation in writing where he argued that itis not part of his duty to prepare purchase request, He stressed that such function was transferred to the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) Secretariat. Not convinced with Adajar’s explanation, Gayon submitted a report to the Office of the General Manager recommending for further investigation on the matter. ‘Thus, on June 23. 2015, GM Aroa issued a Memorandum directing Adajar to explain why the storeroom ran out of materials needed for the daily operation of the water district. Adajar insisted that starting 2014, purchase request preparation was no longer part of his duties as the procedure was revised and the preparation of purchase requests was lodged with the BAC Secretariat. Ina Memorandum dated July 14, 2015 issued by GM Aroa, an Ad Hoc Committee was constituted to handle the investigation. After preliminary investigation and finding the existence of a prima facie case, the Ad Hoc Committee recommended that a formal charge be issued against Adajar for Simple Neglect of Duty. Thus, on September 7, 2015, Adajar was formally charged with Simple Neglect of Duty for his failure to monitor stocks and failure to prepare purchase requests.AFADAJAR, Oscar L. Page 4 of 10 Adajar submitted his Answer and elected to have a formal investigation of his case. Further, he averred that in the year 2014, his Individual Performance Commitment and Review (IPCR) did not include the preparation of purchase request. Formal investigation ensued Subsequently, in a Decision dated November 17, 2017, GM Aroa adopted the recommendation of the Ad Hoc Committee and found Adajar guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty for the second time. He was dismissed from the service with all its accessory penalties. Adajar filed a Motion for Reconsideration. However, in an Order dated December 29, 2017, GM Arao denied said motion Adajar filed an Appeal with the Commission, In an Order dated March 21, 2018, the Commission, through the Office for Legal Affairs (OLA), directed GM Aroa to submit his ‘Comment and the complete records of the case. On May 9, 2018, the Commission received the Comment of GM Aroa, pertinent portions of which are quoted, as follows: xxx 10, The allegation of the Respondent-Appellant that the task of preparing the PRs was transferred to the BAC was belied by the (sic) no other than the testimonies before the Ad Hoe Committee of the Division Manager of Administration’ Finance Division, Engr. Rey Isidore T. Gavon on June 21 2016, Division Manager of Engineering/Production Division Engr. Mary Jane'O. Flores on July 19, 2016 and by the MCWD Accountant Lynel U. Galleros on October 24, 2016. “12. Respondent-Appeliant's functions are defined in his (1) Position Description Form and (2) Individual Performance Commitment Review (IPCR) Forms. The former enumerates the duties and responsibilities ascribed to the Position Deseription Form function of Respondent-Appellant as Storekeeper and is, therefore, of a more permanent nature. XxX “14. The IPCR, on the other hand, details the actual functions to be performed by the Respondent-Appellant for one (1) rating period. It may or ‘may not include all the functions enumerated in the Position Description Form. xxx ‘33, Complainant-Appellee does not agree with Respondent- Appellant that the penalty of dismissal and its accessory penalty rendered onAPADAJAR, Oscar L. Page 5 of 10 November 17, 2018 is erroneous. According to him, the penalty of suspension for a previous decision rendered in June 7, 1999 for (sic) cannot be taken cognizance. The assailed decision was rendered far over a period of nineteen (19) years and, therefore, has gained finality. In fact, Respondent-Appellant hhas served the penalty.” The issues to be resolved are, as follows: (1) whether there is substantial evidence to hold Adajar guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty: and (2) whether the penalty of dismissal from the service imposed upon Adajar is proper. With regard to the first issue on whether there is substantial evidence to hold Adajar guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty, such offense is defined as failure to give proper attention to a task expected of an employee resulting from either carelessness or indifference or signifies a disregard of duty resulting from carelessness or indifference (Salumbides and Arana vs. Office of the Ombudsman, ef ai.)'. It is the failure to give due attention, especially to the performance of a task or duty (Magallanes vs. Provincial Board, 66 OG 7839). To determine the duties and responsibilities of Adajar as a Storekeeper B of MCWD, reference should be made to his Position Description Form (PDF). Based on his PDF, the following are Adajar’s duties: 1. Releases supplies, materials and fittings as per approved Store Requi (SRS); 2. Prepares the following documents: ‘a. Receiving Report; b. Inspection Report; c. Certificate of Acceptance Releases water meters for installations, change and re-opening: Indicates Stock Number of requested materials and fittings; Submits monthly status report, Conducts inventory of stocks; Prepares Purchase Requisition (PR) of stock needed; and Reconciles Store Requisition Slip (SRS) to Bin Card. jon Slip en apaw In his Appeal, Adajar raised as a defense the alleged verbal instruction of Engr. Gayon, Manager, AdministrationFinance Division, directing him to refrain from preparing the Purchase Request starting 2014. He further contended that the function to prepare purchase request was removed from him and was transferred to the and Awards Committee (BAC) Secretariat. Such allegations of Adajar were not substantiated by evidence. Furthermore, the same was belied by the testimonies before the Ad Hoc Committee of Engr. Gayon, Engr. G.R.No. 180917, April 23, 2010 \APADAJAR, Oscar L. Page 6 of 10 Flores, Manager, Engineering/Production Division, and Lynel U. Galleros, the former Corporate Accountant of MCWD. Galleros, one of the witnesses for the prosecution, testified that it was not only a part of Adajar’s task to prepare Purchase Request (PR) Form in the materials and supplies acquisition of the office as provided in his PDF but also mandated under page 98 of the Commercial Practices Manual for Water Districts (Volume 2) which states that the storekeeper should prepare purchase requisition for regular items reaching their re-ordering point. Under the Requisitioning of Materials and Supplies Detailed Procedures provided for in said Manual, the Storekeeper is tasked to verify the non-availability of requisitioned stock from the bin cards. For stock items reaching their re-order points, the Storekeeper prepares Purchase Requisition indicating the quantity to be ordered, unit, stock number, item description, among others. Clearly, the preparation of purchase request form is one of the main functions of Adajar as a Storekeeper as explicitly indicated in his PDF and as mandated under the Commercial Practices Manual for Water Districts (Volume 2) On the contention of Adajar that the duty to prepare purchase request was not listed in his 2014 IPCR because of the verbal instruction of his immediate superior, Engr. Gayon, and that, he was made to believe that such duty will be transferred to the BAC Secretariat starting 2014, such deserves scant consideration. ‘As a Storekeeper, Adajar is fully aware that one of his functions as specifically indicated in his PDF is the preparation of purchase request of stocks. The reliance of Adajar on the alleged verbal directive from Engr. Gayon is without basis and such claim is self-serving, as in fact Engr. Gayon denied providing such directive. Thus, Adajar’s defense has no leg to stand on Moreover, during the formal investigation, the prosecution submitted the bin cards showing that for almost three (3) years, some of the stocks such as the nipples ¥4 x 3, and '4 x 4 were not replenished when these were exhausted as early as 2012. Also, nipple % x 12 was registered a negative 6 (-6) as of 2014. Furthermore, Adajar failed to release items to the plumbers after presentation of Store Requisition Slip Nos. 05-15-214, 05-15-291, 05- 243 which indicates that the Storeroom which he oversees has no more available stocks for inventory items. As a consequence, installation of new water connections was held pending and several repairs were not immediately acted upon. Thus, in order to find a solution on the unavailability of inventory materials, necessary requisitions for emergency purchase were made so as not to extend the temporary suspension of critical functions of the water district. \AADAJAR, Oscar L. Page 7 of 10 In the case of Timbol, Rodel R. and Manlapig, Ricardo P.?, the Commission ruled that: xxx “The duty to oversee or watch over the stockroom and its contents forms part of the duties and responsibilities of a Storekeeper which is reclassified as Administrative Assistant IV. While it was not specifically ‘mentioned in the enumeration of functions, overseeing the contents need not be expressed as the same is implied when he prepared the inspection and acceptance report, submitted reports of supplies and materials, conducted inventory of supplies carried in stock and submit to RCP1, received materials, supplies and equipments, averaged materials/supplies/equipment received and issued from the warehouse, submitted and acknowledged released supplies, materials and equipment carried in stockroom. " Adajar’s failure to give proper attention and exercise due diligence in the performance of his duties as Storekeeper by failing to monitor supplies in the stockroom and failing to prepare purchase requests when supplies are already depleted resulted in the failure of the MCWD to install water connections to consumers. Records further disclose that Adajar’s utter disregard of his functions was so apparent that even the bin cards would show that installation materials necessary for delivery of potable and reliable water ran out. Installation materials which consist mostly of pipes and fittings are classified as regular stock items. ‘These are necessary in the daily operation of the water district. Being a water service provider, the functions often performed on the daily operations are installation of new service connections, as well as repair and maintenance of its distribution lines. It is the water district's mandate to deliver reliable and potable water to the pul Clearly, in this case, Adajar did not exercise the required prudence and caution expected of him as a Storekeeper. Based on the foregoing, the Commission finds substantial evidence to support the finding of guilt against Adajar for Simple Neglect of Duty. It bears stressing that in administrative proceedings, the quantum of evidence required is only substantial. It is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds equally reasonable might conceivably opine differently. The gauge of substantial evidence is satisfied where there is reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct, even if the evidence might not be overwhelming (Florencio L. Advincula vs. Romeo Dicen, G. R. No. 162403, G. R. No. 162403, May 16, 2005). ‘Anent the second issue on whether the penalty of dismissal from the service imposed upon Adajar is proper, Adajar argues that the finding of guilt against him for Simple Neglect of Duty in the instant case should not be considered as a second offense because the finding of guilt against him for Simple Neglect of Duty in the Decision dated June 7, 1999 of the MCWD Nt Resolution No. 100375 dated March 2, 2010.AVADAIAR, Oscar L. Page 8 of 10 is erroneous. He went on to argue that the actions thereon did not constitute Simple Neglect of Duty. Relevant thereto is then Section 43, Rule II, Us Cases in the Ci iform Rules on Administrative Service (URACCS)* which provides, as follows: “Section 43. Filing of Appeals — Decisions of heads of departments, agencies, provinces, cities, municipalities and other instrumentalities imposing «i penalty exceeding thirty (30) days suspension or fine in an amount exceeding thirty day salary, may be appealed to the Commission Proper within a period of fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof.” Records disclosed that in a Decision dated June 7, 1999, MCWD found Adajar guilty ple Neglect of Duty and was suspended from the service. From receipt of said decision, Adajar had fifteen (15) days to file an Appeal with the Commission to assail the alleged erroneous conviction. However, instead of filing an Appeal, Adajar elected to serve his suspension. ‘The right to appeal is statutory and should be exercised in accordance with the provisions of law. The perfection of an appeal is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional as, held by the Supreme Court in the case of Pefia v. Government Service Insurance System, th xxx “The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process, except where it is granted by statute in which case it should be exercised in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. In other words, appeal_is_a right of statutory and not_of constitutional origin The perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional and the failure of a party to conform to the rules regarding appeal will render the judgment final and executory and, hence, unappealable, for it is more important that a ‘case be settled than it be settled right” (Underlining supplied) Equally applicable is the case of Sps. Edillo vs. Sps. Dulpina® where the Supreme Court ratiocinated that, a judgment that has become final and executory is immutable and unalterable: the judgment may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest Court of the land. 3 CSC Resolution No, 991936 dated August 31, 1999; the applicable rules of procedure inthe Civil Service then “ G.R. No, 159520, September 19, 2006. GAR. No, 190660, April 11.2011, 5 GAR. No. 188360, January 21, 2010. \AVADAJAR, Oscar L. Page 9 of 10 Furthermore, the Supreme Court in the case of Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals and Elizabeth Diaz’, held that once a decision attains finality, it becomes the law of the case irrespective of whether the decision is erroneous or not and no court - not even the Supreme Court - has the power to revise, review, change or alter the same. The basic rule of finality of judgment is grounded on the fundamental principle of public policy and sound practice that, at the risk of occasional error, the judgment of courts and the award of quasi- judicial agencies must become final at some definite date fixed by law. In the instant case, Adajar, in effect, is appealing the Decision dated June 7, 1999 However, considering the foregoing pronouncements, the Decision dated June 7, 1999 has become final and executory. As fully explained by the Supreme Court on the Doctrine of Immutability, once a judgment has become final and executory, itis immutable and unalterable. Once it attains finality. it becomes the law of the case irrespective of whether the decision is erroneous or not. Thus, for failure of Adajar to seasonably file an Appeal from the MCWD Decision dated June 7, 1999, the same had already attained finality and had long been executory. Therefore, such finding of guilt in the said decision is considered a first offense that can be taken against Adajar. Under Section 46 (D (1), Rule 10, Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service’ (RRACCS), Simple Neglect of Duty is a less grave offense punishable by suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense, and dismissal from the service for the second offense. In the case at bar, the MCWD Decision dated June 7, 1999 finding Adajar guilty of ple Neglect of Duty which had long been executory is deemed the first administrative offense committed by him. On the other hand, the MCWD Decision dated November 17, 2017 is considered as his second offense as he was found guilty of the same offense of Simple Neglect of Duty. ‘Thus, pursuant to the aforementioned provision of the RRACCS, the proper imposable penalty for Adajar would now be dismissal from the service as he was found guilty of the same offense for the second time. The penalty of dismissal from the service carries with it the accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, perpetual disqualification from holding public office, bar from taking civil service examinations and forfeiture of retirement benefits. However, terminal leave benefits and personal contributions to the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) or other equivalent retirement benefit system, if any, shall not be subject to forfeiture. © GR. No, 190660, April 11, 2011.(FADAJAR, Oscar L. Poge 10 of 10 WHEREFORE, the Appeal of Oscar L.. Adajar, Storekeeper B, Malaybalay City Water District (MCWD), Malaybalay City, Bukidnon, is hereby DISMISSED. Accordingly, the Decision dated November 17, 2017 and Order dated December 29. 2017 issued by General Manager (GM) Juanito C. Aroa, MCWD, finding him guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty for the second time and dismissing him from the service with all its accessory penalties, and denying his Motion for Reconsideration, respectively, are AFFIRMED. It is clarified that the penalty of dismissal from the service carries with it the accessory penalties of cancellation of civil bility, perpetual disqualification to hold public office, bar from taking civil service examinations, and forfeiture of retirement benefits, except accrued/terminal leave benefits and personal contributions to the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), if any, Copies of this Decision shall be furnished the Commission on Audit~ Malaybalay City Water District (MCWD). Malaybalay City, Bukidnon, and the Civil Service Commission Regional Office (CSC RO) X, Cagayan de Oro City, for their reference and appropriate action ai tetera Quezon Chairperson LEOPOLDP ROBERTO W. VALDEROSA, JR. ‘Commissioner VACANT ‘Commissioner Attested by: , DOLORES B. BONTFACIO ~ Director IV Commission Secretariat and Liaison Office OLAS/NS1/YS0/abs22019/CSLO-dang Decision-Adajar, Oscar L €0-0-050918-94080