This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-08-17 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The resignation of respondent from the service on February 14, 2011 is of no moment. Resignation from the service will not extricate court employees from the consequences of their acts. It is settled that the cessation from office neither warrants the dismissal of the administrative complaint filed against the respondents while they were still in the service nor does it render the case moot and academic.[32] "A contrary rule would be fraught with injustices and pregnant with dreadful and dangerous implications,"[33] as nothing "would prevent a corrupt and unscrupulous government employee from committing abuses and other condemnable acts knowing fully well that they would soon be beyond the pale of the law and immune to all administrative penalties[.]"[34] The only effect of respondent's resignation is that it rendered moot the imposition of the penalty of dismissal. | |||||
|
2014-09-30 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Ordoñez resigned effective May 4, 2009, purportedly to migrate to Canada.[27] His resignation would not extricate him from the consequences of his gross neglect of duty, because the Court has not allowed resignation to be an escape or an easy way out to evade administrative liability or administrative sanction.[28] Ordoñez remains administratively liable, but his resignation prevents his dismissal from the service. A fine can be imposed, instead, and its amount is subject to the sound discretion of the Court. Section 56 (e) of Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules provides that fine as a penalty shall be in an amount not exceeding the salary for six months had the respondent not resigned, the rate for which is that obtaining at the time of his resignation.[29] The fine shall be deducted from any accrued leave credits, with the respondent being personally liable for any deficiency that should be directly payable to this Court. He is further declared disqualified from any future government service. | |||||