ChanRobles Virtual law Library
PHILIPPINE LAWS, STATUTES & CODES
A collection of Philippine laws, statutes and codes not included or cited in the main indices of the Chan Robles Virtual Law Library.
:
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ PHILIPPINE LAWS, STATUTES & CODES
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 179 -
IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE OF ASSISTANT
PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR JESUS D. AGPAWA OF PAMPANGA
This refers to the Administrative complaint
against Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Jesus D. Agpawa of Pampanga for
gross neglect of duty, gross incompetence and inefficiency, violation
of Department of Justice Circular Nos. 35 and 49, series of 1991 and
1993, respectively, gross insubordination, and professional absenteeism.
Records disclose that by virtue of administrative complaints filed
before his office by Leonila Castro and Mario Palad sometime in March
1994, Provincial Prosecutor Andres F. Pangilinan issued a memorandum
directing Prosecutor Agpawa to explain why no administrative action
should be filed against him for his failure to resolve I.S. No. 93-765
(Leonila Castro vs. Engracia Palo, et al., for estafa) and I.S. No.
93-364 (Mario Palad vs. Rustico Manalo, et al.,) within a period of
sixty (60) days as prescribed under Department (of Justice) Circular
No. 49 dated July 14, 1993, I.S. No. 93-364 and I.S. No. 93-765 were
assigned to respondent prosecutors on June 16, 1993 and October 12,
1993, respectively. When Prosecutor Agpawa ignored Prosecutor
Pangilinan's directive, and continued to refuse and fail to resolve the
subject cases, the latter issued another memorandum directing him to
return the said cases for reassignment to another prosecutor.
Thereafter, he was charged administratively with the Department of
Justice. Respondent prosecutor ignored this Department's directive for
him to answer the present complaints.
During the formal investigation, Prosecutor Agpawa neither filed any
controverting evidence nor appeared before the investigating prosecutor
despite due notice. However, it was therein disclosed by Prosecutor
Pangilinan that there were sixty (60) cases assigned to
respondent prosecutor for preliminary investigation that remain
unresolved, out of which one (1) was assigned to him as early as July
8, 1992. Respondent prosecutor never made any formal or official
request for extension of time within which to resolve the cases
assigned to him. Worst, he even stubbornly failed and refused to comply
with the several memoranda issued to him requiring him to resolve the
pending cases. It was, likewise, revealed that respondent was a
professional absentee who reported to the office only to collect his
pay envelope although he had never filed any application for an
official leave of absence. Respondent was also facing several contempt
charges before the Regional Trial Court in Pampanga, Branch 55, where
he was assigned as public prosecutor, for his repeated tardiness and
frequent unexplained absences during court sessions.
After formal investigation, the Department of Justice found Prosecutor
Agpawa administratively liable for gross neglect of duty and, thus,
recommended that he be dismissed from the service with forfeiture of
his accrued leave credits and retirement benefits.
We agree.
Without doubt, Prosecutor Agpawa had greatly neglected his duty to
resolve sixty (60) criminal cases assigned to him for preliminary
investigation/reinvestigation. His failure to act on these cases within
and beyond the prescribed period under Department Circular No. 35,
dated September 17, 1991, as amended by Department Circular No. 49,
dated July 14, 1993, betrays his inefficiency and unfitness to
discharge the duty of a public prosecutor. The number of his pending
and overaged cases is highly irregular and bespeak of the seriousness
of his omission which resultantly affects the administration of justice
and depreciates the people's confidence in our justice system. To
compound the gravity of his administrative negligence, he has
unabashedly exhibited contumacious conduct toward his superiors
when he ignored the pertinent directives to him to convey and make
known his explanation on his neglect.
There being no justification or explanation for his gross neglect of
duty and in view of the enormity of his unresolved cases to date, he
should be meted the penalty of dismissal from the service pursuant to
Memorandum Circular No. 30, series of 1989, of the Civil Service
Commission.
Wherefore, finding respondent Jesus D. Agpawa guilty of the
administrative offense of gross neglect of duty, he is hereby ordered
dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all benefits under the
law.
DONE in the City of Manila,
this 20th day of March, in the year of Our Lord, Nineteen Hundred and
Ninety-Five.
chanrobles virtual law library
Back
to Main
Since 19.07.98.