"The appeal is hereby partly granted… the decision dated January 14, 2005…finding PGI Rolly Zaulda guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty and imposing upon him the penalty of dismissal from the service is hereby MODIFIED such that Zaulda is hereby found guilty, instead of "Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations, Punishable with the Penalty of Reprimand". This is the decision of Civil Service Commission (CSC) on the case of Rolly Zaulda, prison Guard (PG) I at the Aklan Rehabilitation Center, Nalook, Kalibo, Aklan.
The CSC, in its Resolution No. 060703, ordered that Zaulda be reinstated immediately as PGI. The resolution was signed on April 20, 2006 by CSC Chairman Karina Constantino – David and Commissioner Cesar D. Buenaflor. It is attested by Judith D. Chicano, Director.
Zaulda was charged of Gross Neglect of Duty after he left a prisoner in a hospital several hours after his tour of duty elapsed. He was found guilty as charged by the investigating committee formed to investigate the said case as embodied in the report dated January 14, 2005. Aklan Provincial Governor Carlito S. Marquez believed in the report and therefore, implemented its recommendation. Hence, Rolly Zaulda, PGI was dismissed from the service".
According to Zaulda, his dismissal from the service is too great a penalty imposed considering the circumstances surrounding his case and there was no prisoner who escape during his tour of duty.
As gleaned from the records of the case, the following facts are revealed:
On July 4, 2004, an inmate named Gernie Natabio, a convicted prisoner detained in the ARC, complained of severe stomach pain. He was brought to the Dr. Rafael S. Tumbokon Memorial Hospital for treatment. PGI. Rolly Zaulda, who was then on a 24 hour–duty from 8:00 am until the following morning of July 5, 2004 accompanied Natabio. What transpired after Zaulda’s tour of duty was the subject of contention among the persons involved. The prisoner was left handcuffed for hours to the hospital bed, where he urinated and defecated, without anybody attending to or guarding him.
On July 6, 2004, a "Report of Incidence Re Hospitalization of Inmate Gernie M. Natabio at the Dr. Rafael S. Tumbokon Memorial Hospital, Kalibo, Aklan and the Abandonment of Him (sic) While in Confinement by the On-duty Prison Guards Assigned to Escort and Guard Him" was submitted by PGI Dizon T. Tropa, Investigation/Communication Officer of the Integrated Rehabilitation and Security Services Division, Nalook, Kalibo, Aklan, in a memorandum addressed to Police Chief Inspector Manuel I. Ilejay, Officer-in-Charge of the same Office. Ilejay, indorsed/submitted the said Report to Aklan Governor Carlito S. Marquez. He recommended that Provincial Guard Rolly Zaulda and Teodoro Centeno be meted "punishment not exceeding strong reprimand."
Apparently, Governor Marquez still had questions in his mind that the report did not answer. He formed an investigating committee composed of Atty. Maria Carillo Zaldivar, - chairman. The preliminary hearings found a prima facie case not only against PGI Rolly Zaulda, but also against PGI Teodoro Centeno III, PG III Ben Dianco and PGI Antonio Malbas. They were formally charged on September 8, 2004 – Dianco, Centeno and Malbas for Simple Neglect of Duty; and Zaulda, the appellant for Gross Neglect of Duty. In the same memorandum of even date, Zaulda was also preventively suspended for ninety (90) days.
Formal Investigation followed wherein appellant and the three (3) others who were charged, as well as witnesses, testified and were cross-examined, aided by their counsels. According to the testimony of PG I Rolly Zaulda, at 8:00 a.m. of July 5, 2004, he called the ARC five (5) times using the hospital telephone to inform them that no guard has yet come at that time to relieve him as his duty ends at that time. Allegedly, he made the first call and second call at around 8:00 to 8:20 a.m. He asked PG George Romero, who answered both times, to send him a reliever, to which Romero replied that the reliever had not yet arrived. On his third and fourth calls, PG III Dianco answered, with the same reply as Romero. On his fifth and last call at 10:15 a.m., Dianco again answered, saying that nobody will relieve him.
Before he left the hospital, Zaulda allegedly asked the prisoner if he had some personal necessities. Since the answer was negative, he then handcuffed the prisoner to his bed and left for the ARC at around 10:15 a.m. Zaulda stated that he had to do it because it was already way past his end of duty, he was tired and hungry. He further testified that he logged out at around 10:23 a.m. and went home. He came to know later that it was already past 1:30 pm when PG I Centeno – originally the one tasked to relieve him supposedly at 8:00 a.m., was able to stand as guard to the subject prisoner.
Appellant – respondent PG III Ben Dianco testified that he had been a prison guard at the ARC for 17 years. On July 5, 2004, he received calls from PGI Zaulda asking for relief; that he told him not to leave the hospital until relieved, anyway, PG Tulio, the team leader of the incoming guards had already sent a relief guard. At around 10:00 a.m., Zaulda arrived at the ARC and informed Dianco that he will be going home. Dianco further testified that he did not ask Zaulda anymore whether he was properly relieved, as he was busy preparing the papers of the prisoners. He stated that it is a standard procedure of the ARC that a guard should not leave a prisoner without formal turnover of the prisoner to the relieving guard…something, which Zaulda apparently did.
The Investigating Committee submitted to the governor its recommendations based on its findings that Zaulda committed Gross Neglect of Duty for leaving the prisoner unguarded, handcuffed to the bed where he was left to defecate and urinate; Malbas was guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty having been found to be lying in the hope of saving his co-respondent/s; Centeno deserving of only a reprimand for not informing the office in advance of his condition, and the appellant herein, PG III Ben Dianco was guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty, having been found to be negligent of his duties as Officer-in-Charge that fateful day.
In the same decision dated January 14, 2005, Zaulda was meted the supreme penalty of dismissal from the service.
Since Zaulda is alone in the instant appeal, the CSC cited with regard to and towards him. His Motion for Reconsideration of said Decision was denied by the Provincial Governor. Hence, he appealed to the CSC.
The CSC resolved the issues in this case whether there is substantial evidence to find appellant PG I Zaulda guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty, thus deserving to be meted the supreme penalty of dismissal from the service.
In the case at bar, it was established that Zaulda did his job within the 24 hours that he was on duty. When there was no reliever who came, he called the ARC five (5) times to ask for a reliever when his duty ended up, until after 8:00 a.m., and even more than two (2) hours after.
This matter of turnover of guards should have, in fact, been a self–operating system upon each guard’s end of duty. This is so because, obviously, there is a reason why the guard’s duty is fixed for only twenty-four hours. There are limits to human endurance and we have to consider that human focus and concentration can only last for so long. And it also should have been automatic for the superiors, or more specifically the head of incoming – duty guard, for that matter, to apprise him that the one tasked to relieve him (Centeno) was indisposed and to field any available guard to replace him even temporarily or until Centeno is able to officially relieve him, the CSC pointed out.
It was undisputed that it was even Zaulda who asked for a reliever five (5) times, way beyond the end of his duty. Moreover, it is also unrebutted that he did, before leaving the prisoner, handcuffed him so he will not be able to escape. This is the primordial concern and task of prisoner guards. Of course, he should have been more considerate and humane enough to wait for the reliever first so that somebody can attend to the prisoner’s basic necessities, considering his ailments, even granting he could not possibly escape, being handcuffed to his bed. But wasn’t said prisoner in a hospital that was supposed to have nurses or male attendants visiting him round the clock to aid him in his medical and bare necessities anyway he was safely handcuffed to his bed?, the CSC asked. We can only surmise and likewise be humane enough to consider that human frailty Zaulda’s primal instincts of survival, in the face of hunger and lack of sleep, overtook his senses, added to the fact that it was, indeed, the end of his duty. When he went back to the ARC to log out, Zaulda was even seen by the more senior PGIII Dianco, who could have asked about the circumstances of his relief from duty. There being no ruckus about it, he presumed that everything would be in order and that there was probably already a substitute or reliever for him. If at all, it is Zaulda’s superiors who should be in hot water more than he.
Ignorance of the law, or of the rules to be followed by prison guards is not an excuse. Zaulda should not have left his post without a reliever. However, there was no willful violation on his part nor sign that he did not care at all what happens because he handcuffed the prisoner; called up his office five (5) times to ask for a reliever; and even passed by the office to log out. His actions therefore indicate good faith, CSC concluded.
Of course, it is not to say Zaulda should be totally excused from liability. He must be held accountable for having left the prisoner without being formally relieved, a clear violation of rules and regulations supposed to be strictly followed by prison guards.
The Commission cannot find Zaulda guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty, as the elements of "wanton negligence and open disregard for one’s duties and functions" cannot be found to have been present in the instant case. Neither can he be found liable for the offense of Simple Neglect of Duty as he cannot even be said to be careless or "minimally neglectful" of his duties. Rather, there is substantial evidence to find him guilty, more appropriately, of Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations, the CSC concluded further.
Anent the contention of the appellant that the Office of the Governor committed grave abuse of discretion, it is noteworthy that the High Court, in the case of Cuison vs. Court of Appeals, 289 SCRA 159, ruled, as follows:
"Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or, in other words, where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility and it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of laws."
With the great lengths which the Governor’s Office took to ascertain the truth in this case, not to mention its strict adherence to the rules of procedure to ensure that the appellant was accorded due process, the Commission cannot find any mark of caprice nor whimsical exercise of judgment on its part. The investigation was as detailed as it can get, with all the trimmings of courtroom deportment. However, the Commission finds that there is certainly a need to modify the appealed Decision insofar as the offense which Zaulda was found guilty of; and necessarily, the penalty imposed. /MP mailto:madyaas_pen@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment