Galero Vs Ca (digest)

Galero vs. CA Facts: 1. Resident Ombudsman for Phil.Ports Authority-Port Management Office (PPA-PMO) received two anonymous letters. 2. The first letter alleged that Security Guard Geocadin was receiving compensation from PPA in spite of the fact that Geoacadin is assigned in and is also receiving salary from NAPOCOR. 3. Second letter alleged that Mr. Elizalde (Port Manager of PPA) and Mr. Galero (acting Port Police Division Commander) was receiving shares in the salaries of ghost employees like Geocadin in PPA. 4. Resident Ombudsman Caigoy recommended the filing of criminal and administrative complaint against Galero for dishonesty, falsification of public documents and causing undue injury to the government. Complaint against Elizalde however is dismissed for insufficient evidence. 5. Office of the Ombudsman for Visayas found Galero guilty and recommended Galero’s dismissal from service, forfeiture of benefits and perpetual disqualification from holding public office. 6. CA affirmed the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman Visayas. Issue: Whether or not Galero is administratively liable Held: Yes but only for simple neglect of duty. Ratio: 1. That Geocadin is security guard of PPA-PMO assigned to inspect equipment at different PPA stations was sufficiently established by the records. He is therefore not a ghost employee. Hence, nothing was falsified and Galero is not dishonest in certifying the DTR of Geocadin. 2. There was also no showing in the records that Galero was in conclusion with Geocadin in defrauding the government, hence Galero cannot be said to have intended to cause undue injury to the Government. 3. Galero however is guilty of simple neglect in failing to implement measures which could have prevented Geocadin from defrauding the government. 4. Simple neglect of duty is defined as the failure to give proper attention to a task expected from an employee resulting from either carelessness or indifference. 5. In this case, had Galero performed the task required of him, that is, to monitor the employees’ attendance, he would have discovered that indeed Mr. Geocadin was dividing his time between PPA and Napocor. Though not required to know every detail of his subordinates’ whereabouts, Galero should have implemented measures to make sure that the government was not defrauded. As he was required to sign Mr. Geocadin’s DTR, Galero should have verified the truthfulness of the entries therein. 6. Indeed, Galero neglected his duty which caused prejudice to the government in that Mr. Geocadin was paid twice for his services. 7. These facts, taken together, are sufficient to make Galero liable for simple neglect of duty, but insufficient to make him answer for charges of dishonesty and falsification of document.