SC orders reinstatement of dismissed PNP officer
Published Oct 15, 2018 12:45 pm
By Rey Panaligan
Noting his length of service, unblemished record, and numerous awards received during his 29 years in active service, the Supreme Court (SC) has modified its 2017 decision that affirmed the dismissal of Senior Supt. Rainier A. Espina as it ordered his reinstatement to his rank at the Philippine National Police (PNP).
(MANILA BULLETIN)
But the SC said that while Espina’s reinstatement is “without loss of seniority rights and all rights appurtenant thereto,” he is not entitled to back salaries.
The ruling was contained in a “per curiam” resolution that granted Espina’s motion to reconsider the March 15, 2017 SC decision that reversed the Court of Appeals (CA) and affirmed his dismissal from the service ordered by the Office of the Ombudsman in 2012.
The resolution was issued last month but was made public only today.
A “per curiam” decision or resolution of the SC is handed down unanimously and the writer of the ruling is not identified.
Espina, then acting chief and head of the PNP’s management division, was charged criminally and administratively, along with several other police officers, in connection with the P400 million supply of materials and repair of combat vehicles.
After investigation, the Office of the Ombudsman found Espina administratively liable for grave misconduct and serious dishonesty. He was dismissed from government service.
While the Ombudsman dropped the charges against Espina and the other PNP officers for violation of the Government Procurement Reform Act in July 2013, it affirmed their dismissal for their administrative liability.
He elevated his case before the CA which ruled in his favor in a decision dated Feb. 27, 2014.
The CA found Espina guilty of simple misconduct and “there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance,” it imposed on him a three-month suspension reckoned from the time he was actually dismissed from service.
The Office of the Ombudsman elevated the case to the SC. In its March 15, 2017 decision, the SC reversed the CA as it found Espina guilty of gross neglect of duty and ordered his dismissal from the service.
Espina filed a motion to reconsider the SC decision. He pleaded for the reduction of penalty by considering the mitigating circumstances such as first offense, length of service and the awards and commendations he has received.
In his motion, Espina also denied having failed to exercise due diligence when he signed the inspection report forms (IRFs) covering “ghost deliveries” subject of the case against him.
Reiterating its 2017 decision, the SC said that contrary to Espina’s claim “his notation-signature on the IRFs just below the statement "NOTED" did not simply indicate that he took cognizance of the existence of the IRFs, but that he confirmed: (a) the PNP's receipt of the tires and other supplies when there were actually no such items delivered; and ( b) the performance of repair and refurbishment works on the V-150 Light Armored Vehicles when the works procured have not actually been rendered when such IRFs were signed.”
“To reiterate, given the amounts involved and the timing of the alleged deliveries, the circumstances reasonably imposed on Espina a higher degree of care and vigilance in the discharge of his duties. However, he failed to employ the degree of diligence expected of him considering the high position he occupied and the responsibilities it carried,” the SC said.
In its resolution that granted Espina’s motion for reconsideration, the SC said:
“Be that as it may, the presence of mitigating circumstances should be appreciated in favor of Espina, meriting the reduction of the penalty to be imposed on him. Section 48, Rule X of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service9 (RRACCS) grants the disciplining authority the discretion to consider mitigating circumstances in the imposition of the proper penalty.
“Hence, in several cases, the Court has reduced the imposable penalty of dismissal from service for humanitarian reasons in view, among others of respondent's length of service, unblemished record in the past, and numerous awards.
“Considering that it is Espina's first offense in his 29 straight years of active service in the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the PNP which were attended with numerous awards or service commendations, and untainted reputation in his career as a police officer that was not disputed, the Court is equally impelled to remove him from the severe consequences of the penalty of dismissal from service, following jurisprudential precedents and pursuant to the discretion granted by the RRACCS.
“Consequently, the Court hereby reduces the penalty imposed on him to one year suspension from service without pay, reckoned from the time that the Office of the Ombudsman's (Ombudsman) Joint Resolution dated December 19, 2012 in OMB-P-A-12-0532-G was implemented.
“However, it is well to point out that a public official is considered to be on preventive suspension while the administrative case is on appeal. Such preventive suspension is punitive in nature and the period of suspension becomes part of the final penalty of suspension or dismissal eventually adjudged.
“Thus, the period within which Espina was preventively suspended prior to the promulgation of this Decision shall be credited in his favor, and he may now be reinstated to his former rank as Police Senior Superintendent without loss of seniority rights and all rights appurtenant thereto.”
(MANILA BULLETIN)
But the SC said that while Espina’s reinstatement is “without loss of seniority rights and all rights appurtenant thereto,” he is not entitled to back salaries.
The ruling was contained in a “per curiam” resolution that granted Espina’s motion to reconsider the March 15, 2017 SC decision that reversed the Court of Appeals (CA) and affirmed his dismissal from the service ordered by the Office of the Ombudsman in 2012.
The resolution was issued last month but was made public only today.
A “per curiam” decision or resolution of the SC is handed down unanimously and the writer of the ruling is not identified.
Espina, then acting chief and head of the PNP’s management division, was charged criminally and administratively, along with several other police officers, in connection with the P400 million supply of materials and repair of combat vehicles.
After investigation, the Office of the Ombudsman found Espina administratively liable for grave misconduct and serious dishonesty. He was dismissed from government service.
While the Ombudsman dropped the charges against Espina and the other PNP officers for violation of the Government Procurement Reform Act in July 2013, it affirmed their dismissal for their administrative liability.
He elevated his case before the CA which ruled in his favor in a decision dated Feb. 27, 2014.
The CA found Espina guilty of simple misconduct and “there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance,” it imposed on him a three-month suspension reckoned from the time he was actually dismissed from service.
The Office of the Ombudsman elevated the case to the SC. In its March 15, 2017 decision, the SC reversed the CA as it found Espina guilty of gross neglect of duty and ordered his dismissal from the service.
Espina filed a motion to reconsider the SC decision. He pleaded for the reduction of penalty by considering the mitigating circumstances such as first offense, length of service and the awards and commendations he has received.
In his motion, Espina also denied having failed to exercise due diligence when he signed the inspection report forms (IRFs) covering “ghost deliveries” subject of the case against him.
Reiterating its 2017 decision, the SC said that contrary to Espina’s claim “his notation-signature on the IRFs just below the statement "NOTED" did not simply indicate that he took cognizance of the existence of the IRFs, but that he confirmed: (a) the PNP's receipt of the tires and other supplies when there were actually no such items delivered; and ( b) the performance of repair and refurbishment works on the V-150 Light Armored Vehicles when the works procured have not actually been rendered when such IRFs were signed.”
“To reiterate, given the amounts involved and the timing of the alleged deliveries, the circumstances reasonably imposed on Espina a higher degree of care and vigilance in the discharge of his duties. However, he failed to employ the degree of diligence expected of him considering the high position he occupied and the responsibilities it carried,” the SC said.
In its resolution that granted Espina’s motion for reconsideration, the SC said:
“Be that as it may, the presence of mitigating circumstances should be appreciated in favor of Espina, meriting the reduction of the penalty to be imposed on him. Section 48, Rule X of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service9 (RRACCS) grants the disciplining authority the discretion to consider mitigating circumstances in the imposition of the proper penalty.
“Hence, in several cases, the Court has reduced the imposable penalty of dismissal from service for humanitarian reasons in view, among others of respondent's length of service, unblemished record in the past, and numerous awards.
“Considering that it is Espina's first offense in his 29 straight years of active service in the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the PNP which were attended with numerous awards or service commendations, and untainted reputation in his career as a police officer that was not disputed, the Court is equally impelled to remove him from the severe consequences of the penalty of dismissal from service, following jurisprudential precedents and pursuant to the discretion granted by the RRACCS.
“Consequently, the Court hereby reduces the penalty imposed on him to one year suspension from service without pay, reckoned from the time that the Office of the Ombudsman's (Ombudsman) Joint Resolution dated December 19, 2012 in OMB-P-A-12-0532-G was implemented.
“However, it is well to point out that a public official is considered to be on preventive suspension while the administrative case is on appeal. Such preventive suspension is punitive in nature and the period of suspension becomes part of the final penalty of suspension or dismissal eventually adjudged.
“Thus, the period within which Espina was preventively suspended prior to the promulgation of this Decision shall be credited in his favor, and he may now be reinstated to his former rank as Police Senior Superintendent without loss of seniority rights and all rights appurtenant thereto.”