December 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > December 2009 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 178305 : December 02, 2009] ATTY. ROSALINA T. TESORIO V. MARGARITO P. GERVACIO, JR. AS OVERALL DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN, AND ROSEMARIE JALDON :
[G.R. No. 178305 : December 02, 2009]
ATTY. ROSALINA T. TESORIO V. MARGARITO P. GERVACIO, JR. AS OVERALL DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN, AND ROSEMARIE JALDON
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 02 December 2009:
G.R. No. 178305 (Atty. Rosalina T. Tesorio v. Margarito P. Gervacio, Jr. as Overall Deputy Ombudsman, and Rosemarie Jaldon).
This case is about an administrative complaint against a hearing officer for failure to decide a case within the period prescribed by law.
On December 8, 1992 respondent Rosemarie Jaldon (Jaldon) and her mother[1] filed a complaint before the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), in SEC Case 4358[2] against Jesus N. Balicanta. The case was assigned to the Securities Investigation & Clearing Department, with petitioner Atty. Rosalina T. Tesorio (Tesorio) as hearing officer.
After eight years of protracted investigation, on August II, 2000 the SEC directed Jaldon to submit a draft decision within 15 days from her receipt of the order[3] She was, the order said, to consider the case submitted for decision whether or not she complied with the directive. Jaldon received the order on August 25, 2000 but filed a draft decision about two and a half months later or on November 8, 2000.[4]
But, three years later, the case remained unresolved. On May 28, 2003 Jaldon filed a complaint[5] against petitioner Tesorio for gross neglect of duty, citing as ground her unreasonable delay in coming out with a decision. The SEC indorsed the complaint to the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) where it was docketed as OMB-C-A-03-0337-I.
During the investigation by the OMB, Tesorio did not file a counter-affidavit or present any evidence to refute the charges against her. After considering the evidence against her, the investigating officer[6] found her liable for simple neglect of duty and recommended her suspension for one month as penalty[7] . But respondent Overall Deputy Ombudsman [8] (ODO) disagreed and found her guilty of gross neglect of duty, imposing on her the penalty of dismissal from service. [9] The ODO pointed out that Tesorio wantonly reneged in her duty when she sat on the case for several years despite the summary nature of SEC proceedings.
Petitioner Tesorio finally answered the charges against her when she moved for reconsideration of the Ombudsman's order.[10] She cited health problems and a heavy workload as justification for the delay in the disposition of the case. She also claimed that she was transferred to the Company Registration & Monitoring Department when SEC was reorganized and this relieved her of the obligation to decide the case. The Ombudsman denied her motion.[11]
On appeal,[12] the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the decision of the Ombudsman.[13] Since Tesorio had not been previously charged and found guilty of a similar administrative offense, it found her liable only for simple neglect of duty. This warranted a penalty of suspension without pay for a period of one month and one day to six months. Dissatisfied with the appellate court's decision, Tesorio filed this petition for review on certiorari[14] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
The key issue in this case is whether or not petitioner Tesorio was negligent in failing to render a decision in SEC Case 4358 within the time given her.
Petitioner Tesorio argues that respondent Jaldon's case was submitted for her decision only when Jaldon filed a draft decision on November 8, 2000, giving her 30 days or until December 8, 2000 within which to render her decision in the case. Since she was transferred, according to her, to another department on December 1, 2000, before that period lapsed, her duty to decide the case ceased.
But, the 30-day period under the 2000 SEC Rules of Procedure[15] begins as soon as the case is submitted for decision and not upon the parties' filing of draft decisions as petitioner Tesorio claims. Under Section 5-6 of Rule V, the parties are in fact directed to file their draft decisions only after the case has already been submitted for decision.[16] Moreover, the hearing officer is not required to wait for the parties' drafts before he can render a decision. He may decide a case with or without them, for otherwise, a party may delay the disposition of the case simply by refusing to submit a draft.
In its order dated August 11, 2000, the SEC declared that the case was submitted for decision regardless of whether or not respondent Jaidon filed a draft decision. What is more, the parties had already rested their case by that time and no further proceedings took place. Thus, petitioner Tesorio had one month or only until September 11, 2000 within which to decide the case.
That Tesorio was transferred to another department on December 1, 2000 is immaterial since the 30-day period had already lapsed by then. Besides, there is no proof that her transfer resulted in the re-assignment of SEC Case 4358 to another hearing officer. Likewise, her health problems and heavy workload cannot absolve her of liability considering that the case had been left undecided for more than three years. Since she maintained her employment, it is not likely that she was ill at all times and could not discharge her normal work.
Simple neglect of duty is the failure of an employee to perform a task expected of him, signifying carelessness or indifference.[17] It is a less grave offense punishable by suspension without pay for one month and one day to six months.[18] With petitioner Tesorio's unjustifiable failure-to decide the case before her within the prescribed period or within a reasonable time, she is no doubt guilty of the offense and should be punished accordingly. Considering, however, that she has no previous record of administrative infractions, the Court finds that the penalty of suspension without pay should be fixed at two months.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The decision dated November 30, 2006 and resolution dated June 4, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP 85040 are AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION as to the penalty in that respondent Rosalina T. Tesorio shall suffer the penalty of suspension without pay for two months, with a STERN WARNING that any repetition of the same act shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro (designated additional member per S.O. No. 776), Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo and Roberto A. Abad, Members, Second Division, this 2nd day of December, 2009.
G.R. No. 178305 (Atty. Rosalina T. Tesorio v. Margarito P. Gervacio, Jr. as Overall Deputy Ombudsman, and Rosemarie Jaldon).
This case is about an administrative complaint against a hearing officer for failure to decide a case within the period prescribed by law.
The Facts and the Case
On December 8, 1992 respondent Rosemarie Jaldon (Jaldon) and her mother[1] filed a complaint before the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), in SEC Case 4358[2] against Jesus N. Balicanta. The case was assigned to the Securities Investigation & Clearing Department, with petitioner Atty. Rosalina T. Tesorio (Tesorio) as hearing officer.
After eight years of protracted investigation, on August II, 2000 the SEC directed Jaldon to submit a draft decision within 15 days from her receipt of the order[3] She was, the order said, to consider the case submitted for decision whether or not she complied with the directive. Jaldon received the order on August 25, 2000 but filed a draft decision about two and a half months later or on November 8, 2000.[4]
But, three years later, the case remained unresolved. On May 28, 2003 Jaldon filed a complaint[5] against petitioner Tesorio for gross neglect of duty, citing as ground her unreasonable delay in coming out with a decision. The SEC indorsed the complaint to the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) where it was docketed as OMB-C-A-03-0337-I.
During the investigation by the OMB, Tesorio did not file a counter-affidavit or present any evidence to refute the charges against her. After considering the evidence against her, the investigating officer[6] found her liable for simple neglect of duty and recommended her suspension for one month as penalty[7] . But respondent Overall Deputy Ombudsman [8] (ODO) disagreed and found her guilty of gross neglect of duty, imposing on her the penalty of dismissal from service. [9] The ODO pointed out that Tesorio wantonly reneged in her duty when she sat on the case for several years despite the summary nature of SEC proceedings.
Petitioner Tesorio finally answered the charges against her when she moved for reconsideration of the Ombudsman's order.[10] She cited health problems and a heavy workload as justification for the delay in the disposition of the case. She also claimed that she was transferred to the Company Registration & Monitoring Department when SEC was reorganized and this relieved her of the obligation to decide the case. The Ombudsman denied her motion.[11]
On appeal,[12] the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the decision of the Ombudsman.[13] Since Tesorio had not been previously charged and found guilty of a similar administrative offense, it found her liable only for simple neglect of duty. This warranted a penalty of suspension without pay for a period of one month and one day to six months. Dissatisfied with the appellate court's decision, Tesorio filed this petition for review on certiorari[14] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
The Issue
The key issue in this case is whether or not petitioner Tesorio was negligent in failing to render a decision in SEC Case 4358 within the time given her.
The Court's Ruling
Petitioner Tesorio argues that respondent Jaldon's case was submitted for her decision only when Jaldon filed a draft decision on November 8, 2000, giving her 30 days or until December 8, 2000 within which to render her decision in the case. Since she was transferred, according to her, to another department on December 1, 2000, before that period lapsed, her duty to decide the case ceased.
But, the 30-day period under the 2000 SEC Rules of Procedure[15] begins as soon as the case is submitted for decision and not upon the parties' filing of draft decisions as petitioner Tesorio claims. Under Section 5-6 of Rule V, the parties are in fact directed to file their draft decisions only after the case has already been submitted for decision.[16] Moreover, the hearing officer is not required to wait for the parties' drafts before he can render a decision. He may decide a case with or without them, for otherwise, a party may delay the disposition of the case simply by refusing to submit a draft.
In its order dated August 11, 2000, the SEC declared that the case was submitted for decision regardless of whether or not respondent Jaidon filed a draft decision. What is more, the parties had already rested their case by that time and no further proceedings took place. Thus, petitioner Tesorio had one month or only until September 11, 2000 within which to decide the case.
That Tesorio was transferred to another department on December 1, 2000 is immaterial since the 30-day period had already lapsed by then. Besides, there is no proof that her transfer resulted in the re-assignment of SEC Case 4358 to another hearing officer. Likewise, her health problems and heavy workload cannot absolve her of liability considering that the case had been left undecided for more than three years. Since she maintained her employment, it is not likely that she was ill at all times and could not discharge her normal work.
Simple neglect of duty is the failure of an employee to perform a task expected of him, signifying carelessness or indifference.[17] It is a less grave offense punishable by suspension without pay for one month and one day to six months.[18] With petitioner Tesorio's unjustifiable failure-to decide the case before her within the prescribed period or within a reasonable time, she is no doubt guilty of the offense and should be punished accordingly. Considering, however, that she has no previous record of administrative infractions, the Court finds that the penalty of suspension without pay should be fixed at two months.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The decision dated November 30, 2006 and resolution dated June 4, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP 85040 are AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION as to the penalty in that respondent Rosalina T. Tesorio shall suffer the penalty of suspension without pay for two months, with a STERN WARNING that any repetition of the same act shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro (designated additional member per S.O. No. 776), Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo and Roberto A. Abad, Members, Second Division, this 2nd day of December, 2009.
Very truly yours.
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rosaura P. Jaldon-Cordon.
[2] Entitled Rosaura P. Jaldon-Cordon and Rosemarie Jaldon v. Jesus N. Balicanta.
[3] CA rollo, p. 463.
[4] Id. at 464.
[5] Id. at 322-324.
[6] Hiiario A. Favila, Jr.
[7] Rollo, pp. 42-50.
[8] Margarito P. Gervacio, Jr.
[9] CA roIlo, pp. 89-95.
[10] Records, pp. 140-143.
[11] Id. at 191-195.
[12] Docketed as CA-G.R. SP 85040.
[13] Rollo, pp. 25-38. Penned by Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino and concurred in by Associate Justices Portia Ali�o-Hormachuelos and Arcangelita Romilla-Lontok.
[14] Id. at 9-23.
[15] Rule VI Section 6-1. Decision. -The Hearing Officer shall render a decision within thirty (30) days from submission of the case for decision. The draft decision shall contain clearly and distinctly a statement of the facts proved or admitted by the parties and the law upon which the judgment is based.
[16] Rule V. Section 5-6. Submission of Draft Decisions. -Within fifteen (15) days after the submission of the case for resolution, the parties shall submit a draft of the decision or resolution they seek; stating clearly and distinctly the facts and the law upon which it is based. The Hearing Officer may adopt, in whole or in part, either of the parties' draft decision or resolution, or reject both. At the discretion of the Hearing Officer, this requirement may likewise apply to orders other than the final judgment.
[17] Contreras v. Monge, A.M. No. P-06-2264, September 29, 2009.
[18] Rule IV, Section 52 (B) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
