G.R. No. 167916 June 4, 2014
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, vs. SARAH P. AMPONG, COURT INTERPRETER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ALABEL, SARANGANI PROVINCE, BRANCH 38, Respondent.

FACTS

This administrative case originated from a letter dated March 15, 2011, by Executive Judge Jaime L. Infante of the RTC of Alabel, Sarangani Province, Branch 38, addressed to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). Judge Infante inquired about the employment status of respondent Sarah P. Ampong, a Court Interpreter III of the said RTC since August 3, 1993. He informed the OCA that despite Ampong’s dismissal from service by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) for impersonating or taking the November 1991 Civil Service Eligibility Examination for Teachers on behalf of one Evelyn B. Junio-Decir, which dismissal was affirmed by the Supreme Court, the RTC never received any official directive from the OCA on the matter. Consequently, Ampong remained employed and continuously received her salary, benefits, and allowances. The CSC had rendered a resolution on March 21, 1996, dismissing Ampong from service after she admitted to the charges. Her motion for reconsideration, arguing the CSC lacked jurisdiction as she was already a judicial employee, was denied. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal on November 30, 2004, and the Supreme Court En Banc denied her petition for review on certiorari on August 26, 2008, in G.R. No. 167916 . Despite this final decision, the OCA’s Financial Management Office continued to release her salaries until it started withholding them in June 2011 following Judge Infante’s letter. In her Comment, Ampong prayed for the Court to revisit its final ruling, reiterating her jurisdictional argument.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent Sarah P. Ampong had been dismissed from her employment as Court Interpreter III of the RTC.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court sustained the dismissal of respondent Sarah P. Ampong. The Court held that its August 26, 2008 Decision in G.R. No. 167916 had already found Ampong administratively liable for Dishonesty for impersonating and taking a civil service examination on behalf of another person. The Court emphasized the doctrine of immutability of judgment, rendering that final decision unalterable. It further ruled that administrative jurisdiction over a court employee belongs exclusively to the Supreme Court, regardless of whether the offense was committed before or after employment in the judiciary. The penalty of dismissal from service, as imposed, carries with it the administrative disabilities of cancellation of civil service eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification from re-employment in any government agency, pursuant to Section 58(a) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. However, she is entitled to her accrued leave credits. The Court ordered her dismissal effective immediately, with forfeiture of retirement and other benefits except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification from re-employment in the government service.