Accidental discharge of firearm by security guard is simple neglect of duty; penalty is 1-year suspension - A.M. No. CA-11-24-P

A.M. No. CA-11-24-P

"x x x.

THE COURT’S RULING

We agree with the OCA’s recommendation and find respondent Enrique E. Manabat, Jr. administratively liable for simple neglect of duty.

The unexpected discharge of a firearm may occur for a variety of reasons. It can be the result of mechanical failure such as wear, faulty assembly, damage or faulty design of the firearm, but most often, undesired discharges result from “operator error” or due to the carelessness or ineptness of the person handling the firearm. It is for the latter reason that our court security personnel are taught the basic rules of firearm or gun safety in order to prevent incidents of undesired discharges.

To exculpate himself from liability, the respondent contended that the discharge might have been caused by a mechanical failure; that his service pistol may have been defective because 9mm FEG Hungary pistolsused during their recent firing course at Camp Crame malfunctioned. This incident at Camp Crame, however, is barely proof that the respondent’s pistol is defective. One cannot simply generalize, based from such incident, that all 9mm FEG Hungary pistols used by the CA security personnel are defective. To bolster his theory, the respondent should have presented evidence to show that his service pistol was, at that time, not mechanically sound, particularly in light of the evidence that the pistol is in good working condition.

In ruling out mechanical causes, it can only be concluded that the undesired discharge of the respondent’s service pistol was the result of his own negligence; in the usual course of things, a firearm that is being unloaded should not discharge if gun safety procedures had been strictly followed. What cannot be denied is that the gun fired and the firing could not have happened unless there was a bullet in the gun’s chamber. Assuming that the respondent did indeed remove the magazine and did indeed cock the gun to eject whatever bullet that might have been in the chamber, obviously, he simply cocked the gun and did not visually examine if the chamber was clear. This is a basic and elementary precaution that every gun handler, more so a security guard who is provided a gun for his duties, should know.

The next question to be resolved is whether the respondent’s negligence, in causing the undesired discharge of his service pistol, is gross in nature. We rule in the negative.

Simple neglect of duty is defined as the failure of an employee to give proper attention to a required task or to discharge a duty due to carelessness or indifference.[14] On the other hand, gross neglect of duty is characterized by want of even the slightest care, or by conscious indifference to the consequences, or by flagrant and palpable breach of duty.[15]

We cannot consider the respondent’s negligence as gross in nature because there is nothing in the records to show that the respondent willfully and intentionally fired his service pistol. Also, at the time of the incident, the respondent did observe most of the safety measures required in unloading his firearm. As attested to by SG1 Tamba who was the lone eyewitness to the incident, the respondent did point the pistol’s muzzle towards a safe direction, i.e., to the ground, at the time it was being unloaded and when it unexpectedly went off – a fact evidenced by the bullet mark on the floor of the guardhouse.[16]

We also agree with the OCA that the respondent is not liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Although the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service[17] does not provide for a definition or enumerate acts that constitute such an offense, we held that conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service refers to acts or omissions that violate the norm of public accountability and diminish — or tend to diminish — the people’s faith in the Judiciary.[18] Here, we do not find the respondent’s negligent act to have an adverse reflection on the Judiciary’s integrity.

Under Section 52, Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,[19] simple neglect of duty is classified as a less grave offense, punishable by suspension without pay for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense. Considering the respondent’s performance ratings and that this is his first offense for simple neglect of duty, we impose upon him the penalty of suspension in the minimum period.

ACCORDINGLY, premises considered, respondent Enrique E. Manabat, Jr., Security Guard I of the Court of Appeals, Manila, is SUSPENDED for one (1) month and one (1) day, without pay, for simple neglect of duty. He is further DIRECTED to undergo, during his suspension, a firearm handling security course with the appropriate unit of the Philippine National Police, at his own expense, and shall be deemed to have completely served his suspension only upon submission of proof of the completion of this course. He isWARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.

Let a copy of this Resolution be given to the Presiding Justice, Court of Appeals, Manila, with the suggestion that the firearms and ammunition issued to the CA security force be technically examined for their mechanical safety and working order.

SO ORDERED.

x x x."