Gross negligence explained; penalty - G.R. No. 193983

G.R. No. 193983


"x x x .

It is sufficiently evident that petitioner was grossly negligent in failing to give a complete and truthful report to the PBAC of Jireh Construction’s actual progress and abandonment of the AB Bridge Project, which could have been a crucial element in awarding the Four Projects to a qualified and capable contractor. Also, petitioner had been remiss in his duties to monitor slippages of Jireh Construction’s performance and to take the necessary steps to ensure minimal loss to the provincial government. Given the short time frame of 45 to 90 days for the completion of the projects, petitioner should have immediately reported the poor performance of Jireh Construction to the governor. Moreover, petitioner could have recommended the take over of the construction of the projects and the termination of the contracts to prevent further loss of funds to the province.

In Brucal v. Desierto,²¹ we held that gross negligence refers to negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences in so far as other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care which even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to take on their own property.²² In cases involving public officials, there is gross negligence when a breach of duty is flagrant and palpable.²³

Petitioner further asserts that Memorandum No. 004 was the reason for the non-completion of the projects and not because of the abandonment of the projects by JirehConstruction.

Petitioner’s contention must fail.

x x x.

The AB Bridge Project and the Four Projects were supposed to be completed before July 1995. Thus, even before the issuance of Memorandum Order No. 004, all five projects ofJireh Construction were still unfinished and in various stages of completion to the detriment of the Province of Aklan.

In sum, the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman, as affirmed by the CA, finding petitioner equally responsible with the members of PBAC for gross neglect of duty, is correct. Pursuant to Section 23, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 or the Administrative Code of 1987, gross negligence in the performance of duty is classified as a grave offense for which the penalty of dismissal is imposed. Section 9 of the said Rule likewise provides that the penalty of dismissal shall carry with it the cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits and disqualification from re-employment in government service.²⁴

x x x."