GR 149072; (September 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 149072 ; September 21, 2007
ESTHER S. PAGANO, Petitioner, vs. JUAN NAZARRO, Jr., ROSALINE Q. ELAYDA, RODRIGO P. KITO and ERNESTO M. CELINO, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Esther S. Pagano was a Cashier IV of the Office of the Provincial Treasurer of Benguet. An audit revealed a cash shortage in her accountabilities. On January 12, 1998, she was directed to explain the shortage. She submitted her explanation on January 15, 1998. The following day, January 16, 1998, she filed a Certificate of Candidacy for councilor. Subsequently, the Provincial Governor found a prima facie case for dishonesty, grave misconduct, and malversation through falsification and created an ad hoc committee to investigate. Pagano moved to dismiss the administrative case, arguing the committee lacked jurisdiction. The trial court granted her petition, ruling that under Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code, she was deemed ipso facto resigned upon filing her candidacy, rendering the administrative case moot.
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision. It held that while Pagano’s separation from service barred the penalty of dismissal, other administrative penalties like disqualification from re-employment and forfeiture of benefits could still be imposed. Hence, the administrative proceedings could continue. Pagano filed this petition, arguing that separation from service, whether by resignation or operation of law, precludes further administrative charges.
ISSUE
Whether a government employee who has been separated from the civil service by operation of law under Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code may still be administratively charged.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The Court explained that the administrative case was not rendered moot by Pagano’s deemed resignation. Separation from office, whether voluntary or by operation of law, does not foreclose administrative liability for wrongful acts committed during government service. The rationale is that resignation should not be an escape hatch to evade administrative accountability.
The primary purpose of administrative proceedings is not merely to remove an erring employee from office but to ascertain the employee’s administrative culpability. Even if the penalty of dismissal can no longer be imposed due to the employee’s prior separation, the administrative tribunal can still impose other penalties such as disqualification from holding future government office, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and a fine. These accessory penalties remain viable and serve the public interest by upholding accountability. Therefore, the administrative case against Pagano for dishonesty, grave misconduct, and malversation through falsification must proceed to determine her liability and impose the appropriate sanctions.