En Banc: TEODULO V. LARGO, G.R. No. 177244
En Banc: TEODULO V. LARGO, G.R. No. 177244
En Banc: TEODULO V. LARGO, G.R. No. 177244
Puno, C.J.,
Quisumbing,
Ynares-Santiago,
Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Carpio,
- versus - Austria-Martinez,
Corona,
Carpio Morales,
Azcuna,
Tinga,
Chico-Nazario,
Velasco, Jr.,
Nachura, and
Reyes, JJ.
THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, THE
NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION
and ALAN OLANDESCA, Promulgated:
Respondents.
November 20, 2007
x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
DECISION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
The NPC investigation revealed that on October 30, 1997, petitioner and
Olandesca attended a birthday party where petitioner claimed to have been
humiliated by Olandesca who threw a piece of paper at him and
shouted, Ikaw ang magnanakaw. At around 5:05 in the afternoon of the
same day, petitioner went to the quarters of Olandesca at ARHEP shouting
invectives and threatening to kill Olandesca. Petitioner proceeded to the
dirty kitchen at the back of the quarters where he met Olandescas
wife. While they were conversing, a dog suddenly appeared and barked at
petitioner. Claiming to have been frightened by the incessant barking of the
dog which was about to attack him, petitioner fired two shots which scared
the wife of Olandesca, as well as his 2 children, sister-in-law and mother-in
law who were then gathered at the dirty kitchen. The first shot hit the
flooring, while the other hit the water hose. Unable to find Olandesca,
petitioner left the compound.[4]
On March 19, 1998, the NPC Regional Board of Inquiry & Discipline
conducted a pre-hearing conference. On motion of Olandesca, the NPC
President approved the transfer of the formal investigation to the Board of
Inquiry and Discipline of the NPC Head Office, which recommended that
petitioner be held liable for simple misconduct with the minimum penalty of
suspension for one month and one day to two months.[6]
The issues for resolution are: (1) whether the retirement of petitioner
rendered moot the resolution of the instant administrative case; and (2)
whether petitioner was validly dismissed for serious misconduct.
The settled rule in this jurisdiction is that cessation from office by
reason of resignation,[12] death, or retirement[13] does not warrant the
dismissal of the administrative case filed against a public officer while he or
she was still in the service, or render the said case academic. The
jurisdiction of the disciplining authority attaches at the time of the filing of
the administrative complaint and is not lost by the mere fact that the
respondent public official had ceased to be in office during the pendency of
his case. This rule applies to all employees in the civil service,[14] mindful of
the constitutional precept that public office is a public trust for which all
government employees and officials are accountable to the people. The
rationale for this doctrine, as applied to government employees and officials
in the judiciary, was explained in Perez v. Abiera[15] in this wise:
[T]he jurisdiction that was Ours at the time of the filing of the
administrative complaint was not lost by the mere fact that the respondent
public official had ceased to be in office during the pendency of his case.
The Court retains jurisdiction either to pronounce the respondent official
innocent of the charges or declare him guilty thereof. A contrary rule
would be fraught with injustices and pregnant with dreadful and dangerous
implications. For, what remedy would the people have against a civil
servant who resorts to wrongful and illegal conduct during his last days in
office? What would prevent a corrupt and unscrupulous government
employee from committing abuses and other condemnable acts knowing
fully well that he would soon be beyond the pale of the law and immune to
all administrative penalties? If only for reasons of public policy, this Court
must assert and maintain its jurisdiction over members of the judiciary and
other officials under its supervision and control for acts performed in
office which are inimical to the service and prejudicial to the interests of
litigants and the general public. If innocent, respondent official merits
vindication of his name and integrity as he leaves the government which
he served well and faithfully; if guilty, he deserves to receive the
corresponding censure and a penalty proper and imposable under the
situation.
Anent the acts constituting the administrative charge, we find that the
positive and categorical declarations of Olandescas witnesses[16] prevail over
the negative allegation of petitioner that he did not utter threatening words
when he went to the quarters of Olandesca. It is settled that denial is
inherently a weak defense. To be believed, it must be buttressed by a strong
evidence of non-culpability; otherwise, such denial is purely self-serving and
without evidentiary value.[17] Like the defense of alibi, petitioners
denialcrumbles in the light of the positive declarations of the witnesses that
petitioner uttered threats to kill Olandesca. It was established that petitioner
entered the ARHEP, proceeded to Olandescas quarters, specifically to the
dirty kitchen where the wife, two children, sister-in-law, and mother-in-law
of Olandesca were gathered. Thereat, petitioner fired his gun twice and
hurled threats to kill Olandesca. His acts of entering the quarters without
permission, hurling threats, and discharging a gun, even assuming that the
same were merely to scare a dog, are blatant displays of arrogance and
recklessness and do not speak well of his character as a public officer.
xxxx
SO ORDERED.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
CERTIFICATION
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1]
The petition was filed under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court but was treated in the Courts Resolution
dated June 5, 2007, as a petition under Rule 45. (Rollo, p. 154). This is in accordance with the liberal spirit
which pervades the Rules of Court, more so because the petition was filed within the reglementary period.
(Nunez v. GSIS Family Bank, G.R. No. 163988, November 17, 2005, 475 SCRA 305, 316).
[2]
Rollo, pp. 33-42. Penned by Associate Justice Aurora Santiago-Lagman, and concurred in by Associate
Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes and Enrico A. Lanzanas.
[3]
Id. at 50-60. Resolution No. 030728.
[4]
Id. at 124-125.
[5]
Id. at 70.
[6]
Id. at 127-128.
[7]
Id. at 74-75.
[8]
Id. at 65-71.
[9]
Id. at 60.
[10]
Id. at 43-49.
[11]
Id. at 42.
[12]
Reyes, Jr. v. Cristi, A.M. No. P-04-1801, April 2, 2004, 427 SCRA 8, 12.
[13]
Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court Branch 8, Cebu City, A.M. No. 05-
2-101-RTC, April 26, 2005, 457 SCRA 1, 11.
[14]
In Sevilla v. Gocon (G.R. No. 148445, February 16, 2004, 423 SCRA 98), the Court proceeded to
resolve the administrative charge and impose the appropriate penalty on the Principal of the Quezon
National High School in Lucena City IV, notwithstanding his retirement during the pendency of the case.
[15]
Adm. Case No. 223-J, June 11, 1975, 64 SCRA 302, 306-307.
[16]
Ma. Azucena Formoso-Manao, sister-in-law of Olandesca and Olandescas neighbor, Normita Cruz-
Espiritu.
[17]
Salvador v. Serrano, A.M. No. P-06-2104, January 31, 2006, 481 SCRA 55, 67-68.
[18]
RTJ-99-1441, May 28, 1999, 307 SCRA 657, 661-662.
[19]
L-23967, November 29, 1968, 26 SCRA 163, 168-169.
[20]
A.M. No. 439-MJ, September 30, 1976, 73 SCRA 107, 108-109.
[21]
Apiag v. Cantero, A.M. No. MTJ-95-1070, February 12, 1997, 268 SCRA 47, 59-60.
[22]
Manuel v. Calimag, Jr., supra at 663.
[23]
Talag v. Reyes, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1852, June 3, 2004, 430 SCRA 428, 435.
[24]
G.R. No. 162805, January 23, 2006, 479 SCRA 452, 456 & 461.
[25]
A.M. No. CA-02-14-P, July 31, 2002, 385 SCRA 500, 506.
[26]
Alday v. Cruz, Jr., RTJ-00-1530, March 14, 2001, 354 SCRA 322, 336.
[27]
Dino v. Dumukmat, A.M. No. P-00-1380, June 29, 2001, 360 SCRA 317, 320-321.
[28]
Sevilla v. Gocon, supra at 107.