Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 63 views

    Position Paper of Ivan

    Uploaded by

    ElijahBactol
    This document is a position paper submitted by Ivan Bjorn V. Bautista, the respondent in an administrative case for simple neglect of duty. The position paper argues that Bautista was not negligent in his duties as a security guard at the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas San Fernando Branch. It provides context about the incident where an intruder entered the premises late at night. It also argues that the poor lighting and design of the perimeter fence at the time contributed to the intrusion. The position paper requests that the case against Bautista be dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Position Paper of Ivan

    Uploaded by

    ElijahBactol
    63 views13 pages
    This document is a position paper submitted by Ivan Bjorn V. Bautista, the respondent in an administrative case for simple neglect of duty. The position paper argues that Bautista was not negligent in his duties as a security guard at the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas San Fernando Branch. It provides context about the incident where an intruder entered the premises late at night. It also argues that the poor lighting and design of the perimeter fence at the time contributed to the intrusion. The position paper requests that the case against Bautista be dismissed.

    Original Description:

    position paper

    Original Title

    position paper of ivan

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is a position paper submitted by Ivan Bjorn V. Bautista, the respondent in an administrative case for simple neglect of duty. The position paper argues that Bautista was not negligent in his duties as a security guard at the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas San Fernando Branch. It provides context about the incident where an intruder entered the premises late at night. It also argues that the poor lighting and design of the perimeter fence at the time contributed to the intrusion. The position paper requests that the case against Bautista be dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    63 views13 pages

    Position Paper of Ivan

    Uploaded by

    ElijahBactol
    This document is a position paper submitted by Ivan Bjorn V. Bautista, the respondent in an administrative case for simple neglect of duty. The position paper argues that Bautista was not negligent in his duties as a security guard at the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas San Fernando Branch. It provides context about the incident where an intruder entered the premises late at night. It also argues that the poor lighting and design of the perimeter fence at the time contributed to the intrusion. The position paper requests that the case against Bautista be dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 13

    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

    BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS

    Office of the General Counsel and Legal Services


    Administrative Discipline Group

    IN RE: ADMINISTRATIVE CASE


    Adm. Case No. 2199-2021
    For: Simple Neglect of Duty
    IVAN BJORN V. BAUTISTA
    Respondent,
    x------------------------------------------x

    POSITION PAPER

    Respondent through counsel and unto this Honorable Office most


    respectfully submits this position paper, and states that:

    PREPARATORY STATEMENT

    "Darkness is a cloak that emboldens a criminal and


    conceals his identity; an aggravating circumstance
    when taken advantage of by the culprit for the
    consummation of his plans”

    Before this Honorable Office is a case of Simple Misconduct allegedly


    committed by the Respondent, Ivan Bjorn Bautista.

    1|Page
    As will be shown below, the circumstances surrounding the incident largely
    contributed to the incident at hand; thus, the dismissal of the complaint is
    warranted.

    MATERIAL DATES

    Pursuant to the online pre-hearing conference conducted on the 9 th of


    September 2021, the parties agreed to expedite the case, and the pre-trial was
    terminated and as a consequence thereof, the Honorable Officer directed the
    parties to submit their respective position papers within (30) calendar days from
    receipt of the order.

      

    STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND THE CASE

    This is a case of alleged Simple Misconduct.

    On the holy hour of 26 February 2019, at around 1:30 to 1:50 in the morning,
    an intruder braved the premises of BSP San Fernando Branch by effortlessly
    climbing over its perimeter fence and roaming around its poorly lit areas.

    Bank Officer II (BO2) Ivan Bjorn Bautista, the respondent in this case, was one
    of the Security personnel on duty during the said incident. Based on records, at
    around 1:00 am, Mr. Bautista performed his duties by moving from his station to
    Gate 1, and checking the personnel designated therein, noting that the latter was
    vigilant and alert. SA2 Nelmilda was also conducting his perimeter inspection, and
    as nothing appeared unusual that early morning, relayed such fact to CCTV
    operator Mr. Atencion. After the inspection, the respondent went back to the
    lobby where he usually was stationed.

    It was only months later, or on 12 April 2019, when an alleged theft of cellular
    phone was reported when parties herein found out that an intrusion happened
    on the said date. Suffice it to say, even the person who was exclusively manning

    2|Page
    the CCTV failed to notice any untoward incident that transpired on the 26 th day of
    February 2019.

    An investigation was conducted, and a root cause analysis was made with
    recommendation that the perimeter fence as well as the lightings be improved.
    Attached herewith as Exhibit “A” is the image of the perimeter fence before the
    incident, while Exhibit “A-1” shows the new and improved fence. As Exhibit “B” is
    an image showing the absence of the floodlights when the incident happened,
    while Exhibit “B-1” is an image where floodlights were installed in the poorly lit
    areas. Exhibit “C” shows CCTV night view on different angles of the compound.
    As a consequence of the said investigation, the respondent herein who was on
    duty when the incident happened is charged with Simple Misconduct; Hence, this
    Position Paper.

    THE ISSUE

    Respondent respectfully submits the following issue for the resolution of


    the Honorable Officer:

     
    WHETHER OR NOT the Respondent is guilty of Simple
    Neglect of Duty as provided for under Rule 10, Sec. 50 D
    (1) of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
    Service.

    ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION

          In the case of Civil Service Commission and the OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
    GENERAL vs. Edgar B. Catacutan, G.R. No. 224651, the Supreme Court
    enunciated that   Simple neglect of duty is characterized by failure of an employee
    or official to give proper attention to a task expected of him or her, signifying a
    disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference.

    3|Page
    In the given case, Mr. Bautista performed his duties just like he always did.
    He religiously followed the task assigned of him by moving from one station to
    another on designated hour, checking the premises, and completing the
    necessary reports. He was never indifferent nor careless in performing his job. As
    a matter of fact, in his nine (9) years of stay with BSP, this is the very first incident
    that threatened to mar his pristine record.

    Respondent’s vigilance over his sworn duty was, however, not equated by
    the previous condition of the premises they were guarding with. The perimeter
    fence, as shown on Exhibit A, had a step which makes it easy to be climbed over.
    The area inside the compound was also poorly lit, and it is very much possible,
    just like what happened on 26 February 2019, that people with ill intentions can
    enter and crawl with ease into the said premises once the guards on duty have
    turned their focus to a different direction.

    As shown in Exhibit “C”, the surroundings were not clearly visible at night.
    These CCTV images are already powered by infrared, which makes it even more
    powerful than the naked eye, and yet it failed to capture the amount of visibility
    expected of a banking security. This is because, the glow emanating from the light
    bulbs were not sufficient enough illuminate the area, more so act as deterrent to
    individuals with ill intent.

    It will be a total injustice if we blindly put the blame to the respondent just
    to have somebody accountable to the incident. Our guards on duty are not
    machines which can fix their gaze and focus on objects without blinking. Their line
    of vision is limited, and poorly lit surroundings further constrict their ability to
    see.

    Fortunately, BSP San Fernando Branch was quick to act as it immediately


    improved the height of its perimeter fence to deter would be intruders. It also
    installed floodlights to improve our guard’s vision at night as depicted in Exhibit
    “B”.

    Thus, considering the foregoing, the Respondent clearly was not amiss in
    the performance of his duties, and should not have been charged with in the first
    place with Simple Negligence.

    PRAYER

    4|Page
               

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of the


    Honorable Hearing Officer that an order be issued to dismiss the case of Simple
    Neglect of duty against the Respondent for lack of merit. 

                Respondent prays for such other just and equitable reliefs under the
    premises.

                MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

    October 6, 2021, General Tinio, Nueva Ecija.


     
     
    IVAN BJORN V. BAUTISTA
            Respondent

    Republic of the Philippines )


    General Tinio, Nueva Ecija ) S.S.

    VERIFICATION

    I, IVAN BJORN V. BAUTISTA, of legal age, Filipino Citizen, and with address
    at 40 Rizal St., Poblacion 1, Penaranda, Nueva Ecija, after having been duly sworn
    in accordance with law, deposes and state:

     
    1.         That I am the respondent in this case;
               
    2.         That I have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing
    Position Paper;

    5|Page
               
    3.         That I have read the allegations therein and the same are true and
    correct of my own personal knowledge and/or based on authentic records
    of this case.

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my


    signature this 6th day of October 2021 at General Tinio, Nueva Ecija.

     
                                                               IVAN BJORN V. BAUTISTA
                                                                            Affiant

       

    SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, this 6th day of October 2021, at
    General Tinio, Nueva Ecija with affiant exhibiting to me his Competent Evidence of
    Identity by way of his Driver’s License No. C02-16-007622.

    ATTY. ELIJAH B. BACTOL


    Doc. No. 4 Notary Public
    Page No. 1 Commission Serial No. 07-20
    Book No. III Until December 31, 2021
    Series of 2021 Roll of Attorney 74375
    IBP No. 157636 16February2021
    PTR No. 6855529 29January2021,
    General Tinio, N.E. 
     
     
    Copy furnished thru electronic
    mail:
     

    6|Page
    Atty. DAPHNE E. YU-DE PAZ
    Litigation and Administrative Cases Group
    Office of the General Counsel and Legal
    Services
    YuDE@bsp.gov.ph

    ATTY. BENJAMIN GERARDO R. POSADAS


    Honorable Hearing Officer
    DeGuiaCB@bsp.gov.ph

    EXPLANATION

    Due to distance and lack of personnel to effect personal service, the


    foregoing Position paper is being served thru electronic mail.

    ELIJAH B. BACTOL

    7|Page
    RMEXHIBIT “A”- The old perimeter fence

    8|Page
    EXHIBIT “A-1”- The height of the Perimeter fence was improved

    9|Page
    EXHIBIT “B”- No floodlights were installed yet

    10 | P a g e
    EXHIBIT “B-1”- floodlights were installed after the incident which greatly
    improved visibility at night

    11 | P a g e
    EXHIBIT “C”- Screenshot from the CCTV powered by infrared

    12 | P a g e
    13 | P a g e

    You might also like