AM P 87 73; (September, 1995) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. No. P-87-73 September 1, 1995
Judge Bernardo P. Pardo vs. Angelie V. Cunanan
FACTS
Judge Bernardo P. Pardo filed an administrative complaint against his Staff Assistant II, Angelie V. Cunanan, for conduct prejudicial to the service due to frequent unauthorized absences and tardiness from January to March 1987. Cunanan resigned in June 1987, and her resignation was accepted by the Supreme Court En Banc. She was later re-appointed as Clerk II in a Quezon City RTC branch. The case was referred for investigation but remained dormant for years. The investigating judge recommended dismissal, deeming the case moot and academic due to the accepted resignation.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), however, opposed dismissal and recommended a three-month suspension. The OCA found that Cunanan, in her Personal Data Sheet for re-appointment, dishonestly answered “NONE” to questions asking if she had any pending administrative case or had been forced to resign from previous employment. The OCA also noted her continued irregular attendance in her new position.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Angelie V. Cunanan should be held administratively liable despite the mootness of the original complaint for absenteeism, in light of her subsequent act of dishonesty in her Personal Data Sheet.
RULING
Yes, the respondent is administratively liable, but the penalty is modified. The Court agreed with the investigating judge that the original complaint for habitual absenteeism was rendered moot and academic by her resignation and its acceptance by the Court. Consequently, an order of dismissal on that ground should have been issued promptly. This delay could have led Cunanan to believe the case was already closed when she accomplished her Personal Data Sheet, mitigating her dishonesty.
However, the Court concurred with the OCA that Cunanan was “less than candid” for failing to disclose her pending administrative case and that her appointment was a re-appointment. This constituted dishonesty, a serious offense for court personnel. Considering the mitigating circumstances—including the Court’s own delay and the satisfactory service remark in her resignation acceptance—the Supreme Court deemed the OCA’s recommended three-month suspension too severe. Instead, the Court imposed a one-month suspension without pay.