Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service

 "As for the charge of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, the Court of Appeals absolved respondent of liability, finding that her actions did not cause undue prejudice to the government or the Civil Registry of Iligan City.

This Court disagrees.

In Pia v. Gervacio, Jr.,58 it was explained that "acts may constitute Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service as long as they tarnish the image and integrity of his/her public office."59

Contrary to the Court of Appeals ruling, respondent's actions were detrimental to the reputation of the Office of the Civil Registrar and the civil service in general. It must be emphasized that Edmilao was forced to initiate annulment proceedings before the Regional Trial Court and see it to fruition only to correct respondent's and Aranton's mistakes. Edmilao may have had a hand in it by signing a piece of paper as "game play," but the spurious marriage certificate would never have existed if not for Aranton and respondent's gross negligence and indifference in processing the application. This sort of behavior is not what is expected of our government employees and is definitely not worthy of the trust reposed onto them by the people.

It is imperative for any employee, most especially those of the government, to exercise their duties with the utmost care and responsibility. This is especially true for registration officers of the Civil Registry. A single mistake may entail a change in one's civil status and lead to unnecessary litigation, which is precisely what happened in this case. Hence, petitioner was correct in finding respondent guilty of gross neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and meting her with a penalty of six (6) months' suspension."

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR MINDANAO, PETITIONER, V. ANTONIETA A. LLAUDER, RESPONDENT.
G.R. No. 219062, January 29, 2020.

Gross neglect of duty explained

 "In Civil Service Commission v. Catacutan,56 gross neglect of duty was differentiated from simple neglect of duty in this wise:

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. 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. Simple neglect of duty, on the other hand, is characterized by failure of an employee or official to give proper attention to a task expected of him or her, signifying a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference. This warrants the penalty of mere suspension from office without pay.57 (Citations omitted)

Here, it is evident that respondent was grossly negligent in discharging her functions and unmindful of the consequences of her actions. Al though there is no proof that she acted with willful intent to register a spurious marriage, she consciously chose to violate the procedure in Administrative Order No. 1, which was meant to standardize the civil registration system and ensure its accuracy, completeness, and efficiency. Though her failure may not have involved a deliberate act to inflict harm on others, this is not necessary to constitute gross negligence. Her failure to act like a reasonably prudent and careful person would have is enough.

Accordingly, respondent actions in connection with the registration of Edmilao and Chu's spurious marriage constitute gross neglect of duty. A different view would not only undermine the Civil Registry, but erode the stability of our national records and our reliance on it."

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR MINDANAO, PETITIONER, V. ANTONIETA A. LLAUDER, RESPONDENT.
G.R. No. 219062, January 29, 2020.

Discretionary Duty vs. Ministerial Duty

 "It seems that respondent has an erroneous interpretation of what a ministerial duty entails. This Court distinguished discretionary functions from ministerial duties in Sanson v. Barrios:53

Discretion, when applied to public functionaries, means a power or right conferred upon them by law of acting officially, under certain circumstances, according to the dictates of their own judgments and consciences, uncontrolled by the judgments or consciences of others. A purely ministerial act or duty, in contradistinction to a discretional act, is one which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of hi s own judgment, upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done. If the law imposes a duty upon a public officer, and gives him the right to decide how or when the duty shall be performed, such duty is discretionary and not ministerial. The duty is ministerial only when the discharge of the same requires neither the exercise of official discretion nor judgment.54 (Citation omitted)

Thus, although respondent's function as an assistant registration officer is indeed ministerial, this does not mean that she must blindly approve all applications submitted to her office. It is ministerial in that when a properly accomplished application is presented before her accompanied by all the necessary documents, she has no choice but to approve and process the registration. Conversely, if the application filed is invalid or missing the required attachments, such as an affidavit of the contracting parties or a marriage license, her duty is to deny the registration.

Even if respondent was not tasked with determining if fraud was committed in the application for marriage certificate, it was her duty to demand that the supporting documents be present upon submission as a precaution to the registration of a spurious document."

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR MINDANAO, PETITIONER, V. ANTONIETA A. LLAUDER, RESPONDENT.
G.R. No. 219062, January 29, 2020.

Ombudsman administrative cases; finality of decision

 "Although respondent is no longer in the public service, having retired in 2016, the propriety of the Court of Appeals Decision, which lowered the offense she committed and the penalty meted, must be discussed. It must be determined if respondent is entitled to a reimbursement of salaries and emoluments not paid to her during her six-month suspension, as provided under Rule III, Section 7 of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, as amended.50 Section 7 provides:

Section 7. Finality and execution of decision. — Where the respondent is absolved of the charge, and in case of conviction where the penalty imposed is public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one month, or a fine equivalent to one month salary, the decision shall be final, executory and unappealable. In all other cases, the decision may be appealed to the Court of Appeals on a verified petition for review under the requirements and conditions set forth in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the written Notice of the Decision or Order denying the motion for reconsideration.

An appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory. In case the penalty is suspension or removal and the respondent wins such appeal, he shall be considered as having been under preventive suspension and shall be paid the salary and such other emoluments that he did not receive by reason of the suspension or removal.

A decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases shall be executed as a matter of course. The Office of the Ombudsman shall ensure that the decision shall be strictly enforced and properly implemented. The refusal or failure by any officer without just cause to comply with an order of the Office of the Ombudsman to remove, suspend, demote, fine, or censure shall be a ground for disciplinary action against said officer. (Emphasis supplied)."

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR MINDANAO, PETITIONER, V. ANTONIETA A. LLAUDER, RESPONDENT.
G.R. No. 219062, January 29, 2020. 

Accountability of government officials

"Government employees must perform their duties with utmost care and responsibility, and must be held accountable for their actions at all times. There is gross neglect of duty when one's actions, even if not willfully or intentionally done to cause harm, are characterized by want of even slight care and a blatant indifference to the consequences of one's actions to other persons.1"

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR MINDANAO, PETITIONER, V. ANTONIETA A. LLAUDER, RESPONDENT.

G.R. No. 219062, January 29, 2020