Saturday, February 25, 2012

Ramos vs. Rada [A.M No. 202 July 22, 1975]

Facts: Moises R. Rada is a messenger in the Court of First Instance of Camarines, Norte

He was charged with violation of Section 12 of Civil Service Rule XVIII, which provides as follows: 

Sec.12. No officer or employee shall engage directly in any private business, vocation, or profession or be connected with any commercial, credit, agricultural or industrial undertaking without a written permission from the head of Department: Provided, that this prohibition will be absolute in the case of those officers and employees whose duties and responsibilities require that their entire time be at the disposal of the government… 

Respondent Rada was extended appointment by the Avesco Marketing Corporation on December 15, 1972 as representative to manage and supervise real properties situated in Camarines Norte which were foreclosed by the corporation. 

His acceptance of such appointment was the basis of the administrative complaint against Rada which was filed with the Department of Justice on October 3, 1973. 

Later, on October 27, 1973, Rada requested permission to accept appointment.

It was not indicated that his acceptance and discharge of the duties as administrator has at all impaired his efficiency as messenger, nor has it been shown that he did not observe regular office hours. 

Issue: Whether respondent Rada is guilty of violation of sec.12 of Civil Service Rule XVIII

Held: Rada was adjudged guilty of technical violation (lack of prior permission) of Sec 12 of Civil Service Rule XVIII and meted a penalty of reprimand. 

The duties of messenger Rada are generally ministerial which do not require that his entire day of 24 hours be at the disposal of the government. Such being his situation, it would be to stifle his willingness to apply himself to a productive endeavor to augment his income, and to award premium for slothfulness if he were to be banned from engaging in or being connected with a private undertaking outside of office hours and without forseeable detriment to the Government service. 

His connection with Avesco Marketing Corporation need not be terminated, but he must secure a written permission from proper government authority.

Digg Google Bookmarks reddit Mixx StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Buzz DesignFloat Delicious BlinkList Furl

0 comments: on "Ramos vs. Rada [A.M No. 202 July 22, 1975]"

Post a Comment