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|P age
 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 9th 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 Neglect of Duty.

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 the

2|P age
CCTV failed to notice any untoward incident that transpired on the 26th 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|P age
 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|P age
 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|P age
 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:

Atty. DAPHNE E. YU-DE PAZ

6|P age
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|P age
RMEXHIBIT “A”- The old perimeter fence

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

9|P age
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