Gambling at work = simple neglect


CASE DIGEST: G.R. No. 188214. Philippine Racing Club, Inc. v. Employees Union-PTGWO and Ricardo Reynaldo. August 7, 2013.

After a judicious review of the records, the Court AFFIRMED the February 23, 2009 Decision and June 1, 2009 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 105132 and DENY the instant petition for failure of petitioner Philippine Racing Club, Inc. (PRCI) to show that the CA committed any reversible error in holding that it illegally dismissed respondent Ricardo Reynaldo (Reynaldo) from service.

As correctly ruled by the CA, PRCI Code of Discipline only deems gambling as a simple neglect of duty and thus, Reynaldo's infraction was not of such serious and grave character as to warrant his dismissal from service. Specifically, the PRCI Code of Discipline categorically classifies the offense "Gambling within the Club premises" as a simple neglect of duty punishable as follows: (a) first offense - written warning; (b) second offense - written reprimand; (c) third offense - six (6) days suspension; and (d) fourth offense - termination. Considering that the records indubitably show that it was just Reynaldo's second offense for the said infraction, PRCI should have only given him a mere written reprimand and should not have dismissed him from service.

Therefore, Reynaldo should keep his job.

Popular Posts