8/17/2019 Simple Neglect of Duty

1/1

Simple neglect of duty

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.[68] In this

regard, the Court finds Parungao, as HRMO, guilty of simple neglect of duty. Given her

duties under the CSC Accreditation Program, she should have been aware of thereportorial requirements, and of the fact that it is the CSC which has authority over

appointments, and not the DBM. Had she given the proper attention to her

responsibility as HRMO, the first set of appointment papers would never have been

issued, thereby avoiding the present predicament altogether.

When a public officer takes an oath of office, he or she binds himself or herself to

faithfully perform the duties of the office and use reasonable skill and diligence, and to

act primarily for the benefit of the public. Thus, in the discharge of duties, a public

officer is to use that prudence, caution and attention which careful persons use in the

management of their affairs.[69] Parungao failed to exercise such prudence, caution and

attention.

Simple neglect of duty is classified under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in

the Civil Service as a less grave offense punishable by suspension without pay for one

month and one day to six months. Finding no circumstance to warrant the imposition of

the maximum penalty of six months, and considering her demonstrated good faith, the

Court finds the imposition of suspension without pay for one month and one day as justified.