Simple neglect of duty is defined as the failure to give proper

attention to a task expected from an employee resulting from either

carelessness or indifference.[68] In this regard, the Court finds

Parungao, as HRMO, guilty of simple neglect of duty. Given her duties

under the CSC Accreditation Program, she should have been aware of the

reportorial requirements, and of the fact that it is the CSC which has

authority over appointments, and not the DBM. Had she given the proper

attention to her responsibility as HRMO, the first set of appointment papers

would never have been issued, thereby avoiding the present predicament

altogether.

When a public officer takes an oath of office, he or she binds himself or

herself to faithfully perform the duties of the office and use reasonable skill

and diligence, and to act primarily for the benefit of the public. Thus, in the

discharge of duties, a public officer is to use that prudence, caution and

attention which careful persons use in the management of their affairs.

[69] Parungao failed to exercise such prudence, caution and attention.

Simple neglect of duty is classified under the Uniform Rules on

Administrative Cases in the Civil Service as a less grave offense punishable

by suspension without pay for one month and one day to six months.

Finding no circumstance to warrant the imposition of the maximum penalty

of six months, and considering her demonstrated good faith, the Court finds

the imposition of suspension without pay for one month and one day as

justified.