Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=50098:gr-149072-2007&amp;catid=1496&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 04:11:26+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 149072 - Esther S. Pagano v. Juan Nazarro Jr., et al.
ESTHER S. PAGANO, Petitioner, v. JUAN NAZARRO, Jr., ROSALINE Q. ELAYDA, RODRIGO P. KITO and ERNESTO M. CELINO, Respondents.
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision1 dated 7 March 2001, rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 53323. In reversing the Decision,2 dated 4 January 1999, rendered by Branch 10 of the Regional Trial Court of La Trinidad, Benguet, the Court of Appeals declared that the petitioner, Esther S. Pagano, may still be held administratively liable for dishonesty, grave misconduct and malversation of public funds through falsification of official documents.
Any person holding a public appointive office or position, including active members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and officers and employees in government-owned or controlled corporations, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy.
5. Declaring the writ of preliminary injunction dated September 07, 1998 as permanent.
A case becomes moot and academic only when there is no more actual controversy between the parties or no useful purpose can be served in passing upon the merits of the case.22 The instant case is not moot and academic, despite the petitioner's separation from government service. Even if the most severe of administrative sanctions - that of separation from service - may no longer be imposed on the petitioner, there are other penalties which may be imposed on her if she is later found guilty of administrative offenses charged against her, namely, the disqualification to hold any government office and the forfeiture of benefits.
In the present case, the Provincial Treasurer asked petitioner to explain the cash shortage of P1,424,289.99, which was supposedly in her custody on 12 January 1998. In her explanation, dated 15 January 1998, petitioner failed to render a proper accounting of the amount that was placed in her custody; instead, she tried to shift the blame on her superior. Thus, the hasty filing of petitioner's certificate of candidacy on 16 January 1998, a mere four days after the Provincial Treasurer asked her to explain irregularities in the exercise of her functions appears to be a mere ploy to escape administrative liability.
Unlike the previously discussed case (Baquerfo), the present one does not involve unserviceable scraps of appliances. The petitioner was unable to account for an amount initially computed at P1,424,289.99, and later recomputed by the COA at P4,080,799.77. With all the more reason, this Court cannot declare petitioner immune from administrative charges, by reason of her running for public office.
Verily, the resignation of Judge Quitain which was accepted by the Court without prejudice does not render moot and academic the instant administrative case. The jurisdiction that the Court had at the time of the filing of the administrative complaint is not lost by the mere fact that the respondent judge by his resignation and its consequent acceptance - without prejudice - by this Court, has ceased to be in office during the pendency of this case. x x x. A contrary rule would be fraught with injustice and pregnant with dreadful and dangerous implications. Indeed, if innocent, the respondent official merits vindication of his name and integrity as he leaves the government which he has served well and faithfully; if guilty, he deserves to receive the corresponding censure and a penalty proper and imposable under the situation.
Section 48. Procedures in Administrative Cases Against Non-Presidential Appointees. (1) Administrative proceedings may be commenced against a subordinate officer or employee by the Secretary or head of office of equivalent rank, or head of local government, or chiefs of agencies, or regional directors, or upon sworn, written complaint of any other person.
To support her argument that government employees who have been separated can no longer be administratively charged, petitioner cites the following cases: Diamalon v. Quintillian,28 Vda. de Recario v. Aquino,29 Zamudio v. Penas, Jr.,30 Pardo v. Cunanan,31 and Mendoza v. Tiongson.32 A piecemeal reference to these cases is too insubstantial to support the petitioner's allegation that her separation from government service serves as a bar against the filing of an administrative case for acts she committed as an appointive government official. In order to understand the Court's pronouncement in these cases, they must be examined in their proper contexts.
In Diamalon v. Quintillian,33 a complaint for serious misconduct was filed against the respondent judge questioning his issuance of a warrant of arrest without the presence of the accused. A cursory review of the facts in this case shows that the administrative complaint lacks basis, as there is nothing irregular in the act of the respondent judge in issuing a warrant of arrest without the presence of the accused during the hearing for such issuance. After the case was filed, the respondent judge became seriously ill and his application for retirement gratuity could not be acted upon because of the pending administrative case against him. Thus, the Court, out of Christian justice, dismissed the administrative case against the respondent who was to retire and desperately needed his retirement benefits.
In Vda. de Recario v. Aquino,34 an administrative case was filed against the respondent judge for failure to immediately act on a case for prohibition. In dismissing the complaint against the judge, the Court ruled that "there are no indications of bad faith on the part of the respondent judge when he set for hearing in due course Civil Case No. 13335. If the complainants were prejudiced at all x x x, it was because of complainant's own error in not asking for a writ of preliminary injunction or restraining order and not due to respondent's error or delay in taking action or any other fault." It was only an aside that the Court even mentioned that the respondent judge had already resigned. Thus, this case cannot be the basis for enjoining the administrative case against herein petitioner.
In Mendoza v. Tiongson,40 this Court refused to accept the resignations filed by the respondents, which were intended solely to allow them to evade the penalties this Court would impose against them. This ruling cannot be construed as a bar against filing administrative cases against government employees who have been separated from their employment, for what would stop the latter from merely abandoning their posts to evade administrative charges against them? To the contrary, this ruling can only strengthen this Court's resolve to diligently continue hearing administrative cases against erring government employees, even after they are separated from employment.
To summarize, none of the rulings in the aforecited cases can justify the dismissal of the administrative case filed against herein petitioner simply because she had filed her certificate of candidacy. The circumstances of the instant case are vastly different from those in Diamalon v. Quintillian41 and Vda. de Recario v. Aquino,42 in which the respondent judges were able to present valid and meritorious defenses in the administrative complaints filed against them. Petitioner in this case did not even attempt to properly account for the cash shortage of P4,080,799.77 from the checks and funds that were in her custody. On the other hand, the respondent government employees in Zamudio v. Penas, Jr.43 and Pardo v. Cunanan,44 were not absolved of their administrative liability; rather, the Court merely mitigated the penalty it imposed upon them. In Mendoza v. Tiongson,45 the Court emphatically denounced the contemptible attempt of government employees to elude the consequences of their wrongdoings by quitting their jobs. It is clear that this Court had dismissed administrative cases, taking into consideration the resignation or retirement of the civil servants who presented meritorious defenses and, in certain cases, even mitigated the penalties of those who were later found guilty of the administrative charge. But this Court has never abetted government employees who deliberately set out to effect their separation from service as a means of escaping administrative proceedings that would be instituted against them.
Any person holding a public appointive officer or position, including active members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and officers and employees in government-owned or controlled corporations, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy.
(26) Engaging directly or indirectly in partisan political activities by one holding a non-political office.
Section 55. Political Activity. - No officer or employee in the Civil Service including members of the Armed Forces, shall engage directly or indirectly in any partisan political activity or take part in any election except to vote nor shall he use his official authority or influence to coerce the political activity of any other person or body.
Clearly, the act of filing a Certificate of Candidacy while one is employed in the civil service constitutes a just cause for termination of employment for appointive officials. Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code, in considering an appointive official ipso facto resigned, merely provides for the immediate implementation of the penalty for the prohibited act of engaging in partisan political activity. This provision was not intended, and should not be used, as a defense against an administrative case for acts committed during government service.
Section 4746 of the Administrative Code of 1987 provides for the authority of heads of provinces to investigate and decide matters involving disciplinary actions against employees under their jurisdiction. Thus, the Provincial Governor acted in accordance with law when it ordered the creation of an independent body to investigate the administrative complaint filed against petitioner for dishonesty, grave misconduct and malversation of public funds through falsification of official documents in connection with acts committed while petitioner was employed as Cashier IV in the Office of the Provincial Treasurer of Benguet.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 53323, promulgated on 7 March 2001, is AFFIRMED. The Office of the Provincial Governor of Benguet is hereby DIRECTED to proceed with Administrative Case No. 98-01 against the petitioner, Esther S. Pagano, for dishonesty, grave misconduct and malversation of public funds through falsification of official documents. Costs against the petitioner.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Eliezer R. De Los Santos with Associate Justices Godardo A. Jacinto and Bernardo P. Abesamis, concurring. Rollo, pp. 16 - 21.
20 A.M. No. P-03-1726, 22 July 2004, 434 SCRA 654, 658.
21 Baquerfo v. Sanchez, A.M. No. P-05-1974, 6 April 2005, 455 SCRA 13, 19-20.
22 Tantoy, Sr. v. Abrogar, G.R. No. 156128, 9 May 2005, 458 SCRA 301, 305.
23 Re: (1) Lost Checks Issued to the Late Roderick Roy P. Melliza, Former Clerk II, MCTC, Zaragga, Iloilo and (2) Dropping from the Rolls of Ms. Esther T. Andres, A.M. No. 2005-26-SC, 22 November 2006, 507 SCRA 478, 493.
27 JBC No. 013, 22 August 2007.
28 139 Phil. 654 (1969).
29 Adm. Case No. 212-J, 22 November 1974, 61 SCRA 144.
30 350 Phil. 1 (1998).
31 A.M. No. P-87-73, 1 September 1995, 248 SCRA 1.
32 333 Phil. 508 (1996).
34 Supra note 29 at 145.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.