Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 427 views

    Publico Vs Hospital Managers Inc. GR No. 209086

    Uploaded by

    fay garneth buscato
    Publico was the Chief of the Blood Bank Section at Cardinal Santos Medical Center (CSMC) when he was dismissed in 2008 due to gross negligence. Anomalous transactions in the Blood Bank Section persisted for almost two years under Publico's watch. The Court ruled that (1) a supervisor can be held liable for acts committed against company property under his supervision and (2) Publico was validly dismissed given the duties and responsibilities of his role as Section Chief to monitor operations, personnel, records, equipment and inventory across all shifts, not just the morning shift under his direct supervision. Publico's defenses that wrongdoers were not under his watch and transactions occurred at night did not absolve him of negligence in performing

    Copyright:

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

    Publico Vs Hospital Managers Inc. GR No. 209086

    Uploaded by

    fay garneth buscato
    427 views2 pages
    Publico was the Chief of the Blood Bank Section at Cardinal Santos Medical Center (CSMC) when he was dismissed in 2008 due to gross negligence. Anomalous transactions in the Blood Bank Section persisted for almost two years under Publico's watch. The Court ruled that (1) a supervisor can be held liable for acts committed against company property under his supervision and (2) Publico was validly dismissed given the duties and responsibilities of his role as Section Chief to monitor operations, personnel, records, equipment and inventory across all shifts, not just the morning shift under his direct supervision. Publico's defenses that wrongdoers were not under his watch and transactions occurred at night did not absolve him of negligence in performing

    Original Title

    20.-Publico-vs-Hospital-Managers-Inc.-GR-no.-209086

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Publico was the Chief of the Blood Bank Section at Cardinal Santos Medical Center (CSMC) when he was dismissed in 2008 due to gross negligence. Anomalous transactions in the Blood Bank Section persisted for almost two years under Publico's watch. The Court ruled that (1) a supervisor can be held liable for acts committed against company property under his supervision and (2) Publico was validly dismissed given the duties and responsibilities of his role as Section Chief to monitor operations, personnel, records, equipment and inventory across all shifts, not just the morning shift under his direct supervision. Publico's defenses that wrongdoers were not under his watch and transactions occurred at night did not absolve him of negligence in performing

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    427 views2 pages

    Publico Vs Hospital Managers Inc. GR No. 209086

    Uploaded by

    fay garneth buscato
    Publico was the Chief of the Blood Bank Section at Cardinal Santos Medical Center (CSMC) when he was dismissed in 2008 due to gross negligence. Anomalous transactions in the Blood Bank Section persisted for almost two years under Publico's watch. The Court ruled that (1) a supervisor can be held liable for acts committed against company property under his supervision and (2) Publico was validly dismissed given the duties and responsibilities of his role as Section Chief to monitor operations, personnel, records, equipment and inventory across all shifts, not just the morning shift under his direct supervision. Publico's defenses that wrongdoers were not under his watch and transactions occurred at night did not absolve him of negligence in performing

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    ANGELITO R. PUBLICO, PETITIONER, VS. HOSPITAL MANAGERS, INC.

    ,
    ARCHDIOCESE OF MANILA - DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE TRADENAME AND
    STYLE OF "CARDINAL SANTOS MEDICAL CENTER", RESPONDENTS.
    G.R. No. 209086, October 17, 2016

    I. Facts:
    Publico was employed to work at CSMC in 1989, and was the hospital's Chief of
    Blood Bank Section, Laboratory Department when he was dismissed from
    employment by HMI in 2008. The dismissal was founded on Publico's gross and/or
    habitual negligence, as penalized under the following provisions of the HMTs Code
    of Discipline for employees, and indicated in an inter-office memo dated March 19,
    2008 that directed Publico to answer several charges.
    Anomalous transactions in the Blood Bank Section were found to have persisted for
    almost two years

    II. Issue:
    1. WON a supervisor can be held liable for acts committed against company
    property under his supervision and inventory control?
    2. WON the CA committed a reversible error in declaring Publico validly dismissed
    from employment?
    III. Ruling:
    1. Yes. His liability did not depend on his own participation in the unlawful sales but
    to his failure to perform his duties as a supervisor.
    2. In affirming the CA's finding that Publico was validly dismissed, the Court takes
    into account the duties and responsibilities attached to Publico's position as
    Section Chief.
    The anomalous transactions in the Blood Bank Section were found to have
    persisted for almost two years.Had Publico been not negligent in the performance
    of his duties, the wrongful dealings could have been prevented, or immediately
    discovered and rectified. The excuses advanced by Publico to evade any liability
    for the acts of his personnel only reinforce HMI's finding that he was negligent in
    the performance of his responsibilities as Section Chief. Among these defenses,
    he insisted that: first, some of the wrongdoers were not under his
    watch; second, the transactions happened during the night shift when he
    supervised only those in the morning shift; and third, the questioned transactions
    were not recorded in the log book.

    Clearly from these defenses, Publico was careless in the performance of his
    responsibilities. He remained unmindful of the extent of his obligations as Section
    Chief Personnel supervision was only one of his several functions, all intended to
    ensure proper and orderly operations within his department. These responsibilities
    included all matters affecting the laboratory, such as workflow supervision, record
    management, equipment and inventory control. He was duty-bound to monitor
    and supervise all equipment, supplies, work, and personnel operating in his
    department, regardless of whether these people were under his direct supervision
    and the shift when they reported for work. As correctly observed by the CA:

    Publico cannot escape liability by merely claiming that he has no knowledge of


    the alleged anomalies or that the staffs involved in the illegal transactions were
    not under his watch. As head of the Pathology and Laboratory Section, it is his
    job to monitor all the properties and supplies under his custody and maintain
    accurate records of the same. Besides, as correctly pointed out by HMI, his duties
    and responsibilities as chief of the Pathology and Laboratory Department is not
    only limited to the supervision of staff during the time that he reports to work,
    which is during the morning shift. His job description did not say so that he is
    only in charge of the personnel in the morning shift. Logic dictates that as head of
    a section or department, such is responsible for all employees under the said
    division regardless of whether an employee belongs to the morning or evening
    shift.

    You might also like