This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-07-16 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Let it be said at the outset that Catena's resignation from the service did not cause the Court to lose its jurisdiction to proceed against her in this administrative case. Her cessation from office by virtue of her intervening resignation did not warrant the dismissal of the administrative complaint against her, for the act complained of had been committed when she was still in the service. Nor did such cessation from office render the administrative case moot and academic. Indeed, the Court's jurisdiction at the time of the filing of the administrative complaint was not lost because the respondent had ceased in office during the pendency of the case.[29] Otherwise, exacting responsibility for administrative liabilities incurred would be easily avoided or evaded. | |||||
|
2013-06-25 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| In the case of Re: Missing Exhibits and Court Properties in Regional Trial Court, Branch 4, Panabo City, Davao del Norte,[22] a Memorandum recommending that court's presiding Judge, Jesus L. Grageda, who compulsorily retired on November 25, 2009, be held liable for not ordering a prompt investigation as to missing court exhibits and properties and be made to pay a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) was submitted by the OCA to the Court on July 10, 2012, or more than two (2) years after he retired. In dismissing the complaint against him, We ruled that: In order for the Court to acquire jurisdiction over an administrative case, the complaint must be filed during the incumbency of the respondent. Once jurisdiction is acquired, it is not lost by reason of respondent's cessation from office. In Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Hamoy, the Court held that: | |||||
|
2013-03-11 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Jurisprudence is replete with rulings that in order for the Court to acquire jurisdiction over an administrative proceeding, the complaint must be filed during the incumbency of the respondent public official or employee. [16] This is because the filing of an administrative case is predicated on the holding of a position or office in the government service.[17] However, once jurisdiction has attached, the same is not lost by the mere fact that the public official or employee was no longer in office during the pendency of the case. In fine, cessation from office by reason of resignation, death or retirement is not a ground to dismiss the case filed against the said officer or employee at the time that he was still in the public service or render it moot and academic.[18] | |||||