Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Anent your memo dated 1 August 2003 of same subject, may I request that my transfer to TSD Room be temporarily put
aside for the following reasons:
1. As I repeatedly conveyed to you, taking into consideration my assignment in planning where a lot of
concentration is needed, movement and sound common in a shared room easily distract me. My previous
Directors recognized it that is why I am assigned in this present room since 1996. And the whole are including the
computer room is assigned to PMES and IT where I also belong as its Project Manager. We worked as a team.
2. Scattering me and my Team members in PMES-IT will effectively destroy our teamwork to the detriment of the
projects and in total contrast to sound management practice of teamwork and team building. Also, I can easily
attend to the computer server LAN-internet requirements together with and/or in the absence of Mr. Serrano
because it is just within the same work area.
xxxx
How then could petitioner transfer to Engr. Lucenas room given that it was the latter who refused to surrender his office
space? Petitioner found herself in an apparent cul-de-sac as she was unable to move in to Engr. Lucenas room through
no fault of her own.13
The CA likewise found that the respondent did not violate the March 6, 2000 memorandum that required her to seek
clearance from the Regional Directors Office before making any phone call because at the time the respondent made the
contested telephone calls, she had not yet received any copy of the memorandum.
The Issue
The sole issue raised in the present petition for review on certiorari is the respondents liability for insubordination.
Our Ruling
We find the present petition partially meritorious. The respondent is guilty of simple insubordination.
Insubordination is defined as a refusal to obey some order, which a superior officer is entitled to give and have obeyed.
The term imports a willful or intentional disregard of the lawful and reasonable instructions of the employer. 14
In this case, the respondent committed insubordination when she failed to promptly act on the June 16, 2000
memorandum15 issued by her superior, Regional Director Nepomuceno, reminding her of her duties to immediately turn-
over documents to and exchange room assignments with the new Administrative Officer-Designate, Engr. Lucena. The
subject memorandum was a lawful order issued to enforce Special Order No. 23, s. of 2000 reassigning the respondent
from Administrative to Planning Officer, and which warranted the respondents obedience and compliance.
The reiteration of the directives in the June 16, 2000 memorandum in several succeeding memoranda issued by
Nepomuceno (dated June 19, 2000,16 June 23, 200017 and June 26, 2000),18 all the more demonstrates the respondents
inaction and non-compliance with her superiors orders.1wphi1 The records show that it was only on June 28, 2000 that
the respondent complied with the document tum-over through a letter addressed to Engr. Lucena containing a list of
personnel files, human resource management and general administration documents under her accountability. 19
We see in the respondent's initial inaction her deliberate choice not to act on the subject memoranda; she waited until the
resolution of her motion for reconsideration of her reassignment (that she filed on June 27, 2000) before she actually
complied. The service would function very inefficiently if these types of dilatory actions would be allowed.
As for the memorandum on the use of the office telephone, we find, as the CA did, the charge against the respondent
unmeritorious. Though the subject memorandum was issued on March 6, 2000, the respondent's office received it only on
March 7, 2000 at around 10 o'clock in the moming.20 Thus, respondent could not have committed a violation for the
telephone calls she made earlier that day.
Insubordination is a less grave offense punishable by suspension of one month and one day to six months. 21Since we
merely found the respondent guilty of insubordination in not promptly complying with the memoranda for the turn-over of
documents, we find the suspension of one month and one day as sufficient penalty for her offense.
Considering, however, that respondent is no longer with DOST-V and is now working abroad, we can no longer impose on
her the penalty of suspension from service. In lieu thereof, we impose on the respondent the penalty of a fine of one
month salary, which amount is to be deducted from her retirement benefits or from whatever benefits, if any, that she is
still entitled to receive after her resignation. If there is none, the respondent is ordered to pay the fine directly to and within
the period to be directed by the CSC.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we find Marilyn G. Arandia GUILTY of INSUBORDINATION and impose on her the
penalty of a FINE equivalent to her one month salary.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
ATTE S TATI O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of Minion of the Court's Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
C E RTI F I CATI O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court's Division.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice