19 Pagano V Nazarro PDF

11/18/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 533
622 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Pagano vs. Nazarro, Jr.
*
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.
Administrative Law; Public Officers; Dismissal; Resignation;

The precipitate resignation of a government employee charged with
an offense punishable by dismissal from the service does not
render moot the administrative case against him; The resignation
of a public servant does not preclude the finding of any
administrative liability to which he or she shall still be
answerable.—In Office of the Court Administrator v. Juan, 434
SCRA 654 (2004), this Court categorically ruled that the
precipitate resignation of a government employee charged with an
offense punishable by dismissal from the service does not render
moot the administrative case against him. Resignation is not a
way out to evade administrative liability when facing
administrative sanction. The resignation of a public servant
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
623
VOL. 533, SEPTEMBER 21, 2007 623
does not preclude the finding of any administrative liability to

which he or she shall still be answerable.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Instant case is not moot and

academic, despite the petitioner’s separation from government
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015fcfdd6ef2f16a7045003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/16
service.—A case becomes moot and academic only when there is

no more actual controversy between the parties or no useful
purpose can be served in passing upon the merits of the case. The
instant case is not moot and academic, despite the petitioner’s
separation from government service. Even if the most severe of
administrative sanctions—that of separation from service—may
no longer be imposed on the petitioner, there are other penalties
which may be imposed on her if she is later found guilty of
administrative offenses charged against her, namely, the
disqualification to hold any government office and the forfeiture of
benefits.
Same; Same; Same; Same; An employee’s act of tendering his

or her resignation immediately after the discovery of the
anomalous transaction is indicative of his or her guilt as flight in
criminal cases.—This Court views with suspicion the precipitate
act of a government employee in effecting his or her separation
from service, soon after an administrative case has been initiated
against him or her. An employee’s act of tendering his or her
resignation immediately after the discovery of the anomalous
transaction is indicative of his or her guilt as flight in criminal
cases.
Same; Same; Courts cannot overemphasize the need for

honesty and accountability in the acts of government officials.—
Public service requires utmost integrity and discipline. A public
servant must exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and
integrity for no less than the Constitution mandates the principle
that “a public office is a public trust and all public officers and
employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve
them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency.”
The Courts cannot overemphasize the need for honesty and
accountability in the acts of government officials.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

624

Lyssa G.S. Pagano-Calde for petitioner.

Provincial Legal Office for respondents.
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under

1
Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision dated 7 March
2001, rendered by the Court of Appeals
2
in CA-G.R. SP No.
53323. In reversing the Decision, dated 4 January 1999,
rendered by Branch 10 of the Regional Trial Court of La
Trinidad, Benguet, the Court of Appeals declared that the
petitioner, Esther S. Pagano, may still be held
administratively liable for dishonesty, grave misconduct
and malversation of public funds through falsification of
official documents.
While the petitioner was employed as Cashier IV of the
Office of the Provincial Treasurer of Benguet, it was
discovered that in her accountabilities she had incurred a
shortage of P1,424,289.99. On 12 January 1998, the
Provincial Treasurer wrote a letter directing petitioner to
explain why no administrative charge should be filed3
against her in connection with the cash shortage.4
Petitioner submitted her explanation on 15 January 1998.
On 16 January 1998, petitioner filed her Certificate 5
of
Candidacy for the position of Councilor in Baguio City.
On 22 January 1998, the Office of the Provincial
Governor of Benguet found the existence of a prima facie
case for dishonesty, grave misconduct and malversation of
public funds through falsification of official documents and
directed the
_______________
1 Penned by Associate Justice Eliezer R. De Los Santos with Associate

Justices Godardo A. Jacinto and Bernardo P. Abesamis, concurring. Rollo,
pp. 16-21.
2 Id., at pp. 39-45.
3 Id., at p. 99.
4 Id., at p. 17.
5 Id.
625
VOL. 533, SEPTEMBER 21, 2007 625

6
petitioner to file an answer. The Provincial Governor also
issued Executive Order No. 98-02, creating an ad hoc
committee composed of herein respondents to investigate
and submit findings 7
relative to the administrative charges
against petitioner.
On 10 February 1998, petitioner filed her Answer before
the Office of the Provincial Governor. Petitioner alleged
that she had merely acted under the express direction of

her supervisor, Mr. Mauricio B. Ambanloc. She further
claimed that the funds and checks were deposited in the
depository banks of the Province of Benguet, but the 8
records are devoid of any documents to support her claim.
On 19 February 1998, petitioner filed a motion to
dismiss the administrative case on the ground that the
committee created to investigate her case had no
jurisdiction
9
over the subject of the action and over her
person.
10
The respondents denied the said motion on 21 May
1998. Petitioner filed a motion 11for reconsideration, which
was again denied on 1 July 1998.
On 14 August 1998, petitioner filed a Petition for
Certiorari and Prohibition with prayer for issuance of a
Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary
Injunction before Branch 10 of the Regional Trial Court of
La Trinidad, Benguet. The trial court issued 12
a Writ of
Preliminary Injunction on 7 September 1998.
In the course of the audit and examination of the
petitioner’s collection accounts, the Commission on Audit
(COA) discovered that the petitioner was unable to account
for
_______________
6 Id., at p. 101.
7 Id., at p. 102.
8 Id., at pp. 103-107.
9 Id., at pp. 108-109.
10 Id., at pp. 118-120.
11 Id., at p. 40.
12 Id.
626

P4,080,799.77, and not just the initial cash shortage of

P1,424,289.99. Thus, the COA Provincial Auditor, Getulio
B. Santos, reported these findings to the Office of the
Ombudsman in a letter dated 11 September 1998 with the
recommendation that civil, criminal
13
and administrative
cases be filed against petitioner.
In its Decision, dated 4 January 1999, the trial court
ruled in favor of the petitioner. It noted that the most
severe penalty which may be imposed on the petitioner is
removal from service, and that under Section 66 of the
Omnibus Election Code, petitioner was already deemed

resigned when she filed her Certificate of Candidacy on 16
January 1998. Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code
provides that:
“Any person holding a public appointive office or position,

including active members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines,
and officers and employees in government-owned or controlled
corporations, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his
office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy.”
Thus, it declared that even if the committee created by the

Provincial Governor had the jurisdiction to hear the
administrative case against
14
the petitioner, such case was
now moot and academic. The dispositive part of the said
Decision reads:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby

rendered in favor of petitioner Esther Sison Pagano and against
herein respondents:
1. Finding that the Committee of which the respondents are

members has no longer jurisdiction to conduct any
investigation or proceedings under civil service rules and
regulations relative to the administrative case filed
against the petitioner;
_______________
13 Id., at pp. 97-98.

14 Id., at pp. 43-44.
627
VOL. 533, SEPTEMBER 21, 2007 627

2. Finding that the Committee has acted with grave abuse of

discretion and without jurisdiction in denying the Motion
to Dismiss filed by the petitioner in Administrative Case
No. 98-01;
3. Declaring as null and void all acts, orders, resolutions and
proceedings of the Committee in Administrative Case No.
98-01;
4. Ordering the respondents, their agents, representatives
and all persons acting on their behalf, to desist from
proceeding with Administrative Case No. 98-01; and
5. Declaring the writ of preliminary injunction dated

September 07, 1998 as permanent.
15
No pronouncement as to costs.”
Respondents filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals. In

reversing the Decision of the trial court, the appellate court
pronounced that even though petitioner’s separation from
service already bars the imposition upon her of the severest
administrative sanction of separation from service, other
imposable accessory penalties such as disqualification to
hold government
16
office and forfeiture of benefits may still
be imposed.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the
Decision of the Court of Appeals,
17
which was denied in a
Resolution dated 10 July 2001.
Hence, in the present Petition, the sole issue is being
raised:
WHETHER OR NOT A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE WHO HAS

BEEN SEPARATED FROM THE CIVIL SERVICE BY
OPERATION OF LAW PURSUANT TO SECTION 66 OF BATAS
PAMBANSA BILANG 881 (THE OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE)
MAY STILL BE
_______________
15 Id., at p. 45.
16 Id., at pp. 16-21.
17 Id., at pp. 37-38.
628

ADMINISTRATIVELY CHARGED UNDER

18
CIVIL SERVICE
LAWS, RULES AND REGULATIONS
Petitioner argues that a government employee who has

been separated from service, whether by voluntary
resignation or by operation of law, can no longer be
administratively
19
charged. Such argument is devoid of
merit. 20
In Office of the Court Administrator v. Juan, this Court
categorically ruled that the precipitate resignation of a
government employee charged with an offense punishable
by dismissal from the service does not render moot the
administrative case against him. Resignation is not a way
out to evade administrative liability when facing

administrative sanction. The resignation of a public
servant does not preclude the finding of any administrative
21
liability to which he or she shall still be answerable.
A case becomes moot and academic only when there is
no more actual controversy between the parties or no
useful purpose
22
can be served in passing upon the merits of
the case. The instant case is not moot and academic,
despite the petitioner’s separation from government
service. Even if the most severe of administrative sanctions
—that of separation from service—may no longer be
imposed on the petitioner, there are other penalties which
may be imposed on her if she is later found guilty of
administrative offenses charged against her, namely, the
disqualification to hold any government office and the
forfeiture of benefits.
Moreover, this Court views with suspicion the
precipitate act of a government employee in effecting his or
her separa-
_______________
18 Id., at p. 7.
19 Id., at p. 128.
20 A.M. No. P-03-1726, 22 July 2004, 434 SCRA 654, 658.
21 Baquerfo v. Sanchez, A.M. No. P-05-1974, 6 April 2005, 455 SCRA 13,
19-20.
22 Tantoy, Sr. v. Abrogar, G.R. No. 156128, 9 May 2005, 458 SCRA 301,
305.
629
VOL. 533, SEPTEMBER 21, 2007 629

tion from service, soon after an administrative case has

been initiated against him or her. An employee’s act of
tendering his or her resignation immediately after the
discovery of the anomalous transaction 23
is indicative of his
or her guilt as flight in criminal cases.
In the present case, the Provincial Treasurer asked
petitioner to explain the cash shortage of P1,424,289.99,
which was supposedly in her custody on 12 January 1998.
In her explanation, dated 15 January 1998, petitioner
failed to render a proper accounting of the amount that was
placed in her custody; instead, she tried to shift the blame
on her superior. Thus, the hasty filing of petitioner’s
certificate of candidacy on 16 January 1998, a mere four
days after the Provincial Treasurer asked her to explain

irregularities in the exercise of her functions appears to be
a mere ploy to escape administrative liability.
Public service requires utmost integrity and discipline.
A public servant must exhibit at all times the highest sense
of honesty and integrity for no less than the Constitution
mandates the principle that “a public office is a public trust
and all public officers and employees must at all times be
accountable to the people, serve them with utmost 24
responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency.” The
Courts cannot overemphasize the need for honesty and
accountability in the 25
acts of government officials. In
Baquerfo v. Sanchez, this Court reproached a government
employee for the theft of two unserviceable desk fans and
one unserviceable stove. Moreover, the Court refused to
take into account the subsequent resignation of the said
government employee. In the aforecited case, this Court
emphatically declared that:
_______________
23 Re: (1) Lost Checks Issued to the Late Roderick Roy P. Melliza,
Former Clerk II, MCTC, Zaragga, Iloilo and (2) Dropping from the Rolls of
Ms. Esther T. Andres, A.M. No. 2005-26-SC, 22 November 2006, 507 SCRA
478, 493.
24 Id., at p. 498.
25 Supra note 21.
630

“Cessation from office of respondent by resignation or retirement

neither warrants the dismissal of the administrative complaint
filed against him while he was still in the service nor does it
render said administrative case moot and academic. The
jurisdiction that was this Court’s at the time of the filing of the
administrative complaint was not lost by the mere fact that the
respondent public official had ceased in office during the pendency
of his case. Respondent’s resignation does not preclude the finding
of any administrative
26
liability to which he shall still be
answerable.”
Unlike the previously discussed case (Baquerfo), the

present one does not involve unserviceable scraps of
appliances. The petitioner was unable to account for an
amount initially computed at P1,424,289.99, and later
recomputed by the COA at P4,080,799.77. With all the

more reason, this Court cannot declare petitioner immune
from administrative charges, by reason of her running for
public office.
In the very recent case, In re: Non-disclosure before the
Judicial and Bar Council of the Administrative Case Filed
Against Judge Jaime V. Quitain, in His Capacity as the
then Assistant Regional Director of the National
27
Police
Commission, Regional Office XI, Davao City, this Court
pronounced the respondent judge guilty of grave
misconduct, despite his resignation:
“Verily, the resignation of Judge Quitain which was accepted by

the Court without prejudice does not render moot and academic
the instant administrative case. The jurisdiction that the Court
had at the time of the filing of the administrative complaint is not
lost by the mere fact that the respondent judge by his resignation
and its consequent acceptance—without prejudice—by this Court,
has ceased to be in office during the pendency of this case. x x x. A
contrary rule would be fraught with injustice and pregnant with
dreadful and dangerous implications. Indeed, if innocent, the
respondent official merits vindication of his name and integrity as
he leaves the government which he has served well and faithfully;
if guilty, he
_______________
26 Id., at pp. 19-20.

27 JBC No. 013, 22 August 2007, 530 SCRA 729.
631
VOL. 533, SEPTEMBER 21, 2007 631

deserves to receive the corresponding censure and a penalty

proper and imposable under the situation.”
This Court cannot countenance the petitioner’s puerile

pretext that since no administrative case had been filed
against her during her employment, she can no longer be
administratively charged. Section 48, Chapter 6, Subtitle
A, Title I, Book V of Executive Order No. 292, also known
as the Administrative Code of 1987, provides for the
initiation of administrative proceedings by the proper
personalities as part of the procedural process in
administrative cases:
“Section 48. Procedures in Administrative Cases Against Non-

Presidential Appointees.—(1) Administrative proceedings may be
commenced against a subordinate officer or employee by the
Secretary or head of office of equivalent rank, or head of local
government, or chiefs of agencies, or regional directors, or upon
sworn, written complaint of any other person.”
At the time petitioner filed her certificate of candidacy,

petitioner was already notified by the Provincial Treasurer
that she needed to explain why no administrative charge
should be filed against her, after it discovered the cash
shortage of P1,424,289.99 in her accountabilities.
Moreover, she had already filed her answer. To all intents
and purposes, the administrative proceedings had already
been commenced at the time she was considered separated
from service through her precipitate filing of her certificate
of candidacy. Petitioner’s bad faith was manifest when she
filed it, fully knowing that administrative proceedings were
being instituted against her as part of the procedural due
process in laying the foundation for an administrative case.
To support her argument that government employees
who have been separated can no longer be administratively
charged, petitioner
28
cites the following cases: Diamalon v.
Quintillian,
_______________
28 139 Phil. 654; 29 SCRA 347 (1969).
632

29 30
Vda. de Recario
31
v. Aquino, Zamudio v. Peñas,32
Jr., Pardo
v. Cunanan, and Mendoza v. Tiongson. A piecemeal
reference to these cases is too insubstantial to support the
petitioner’s allegation that her separation from government
service serves as a bar against the filing of an
administrative case for acts she committed as an
appointive government official. In order to understand the
Court’s pronouncement in these cases, they must be
examined in their proper contexts.33
In Diamalon v. Quintillian, a complaint for serious
misconduct was filed against the respondent judge
questioning his issuance of a warrant of arrest without the
presence of the accused. A cursory review of the facts in
this case shows that the administrative complaint lacks
basis, as there is nothing irregular in the act of the

respondent judge in issuing a warrant of arrest without the
presence of the accused during the hearing for such
issuance. After the case was filed, the respondent judge
became seriously ill and his application for retirement
gratuity could not be acted upon because of the pending
administrative case against him. Thus, the Court, out of
Christian justice, dismissed the administrative case
against the respondent who was to retire and desperately
needed his retirement benefits. 34
In Vda. de Recario v. Aquino, an administrative case
was filed against the respondent judge for failure to
immediately act on a case for prohibition. In dismissing the
complaint against the judge, the Court ruled that “there
are no indications of bad faith on the part of the respondent
judge when he set for hearing in due course Civil Case No.
13335. If the complainants were prejudiced at all x x x, it
was because of complainant’s own error in not asking for a
writ of prelimi-
_______________
29 Adm. Case No. 212-J, 22 November 1974, 61 SCRA 144.

30 350 Phil. 1; 286 SCRA 367 (1998).
31 A.M. No. P-87-73, 1 September 1995, 248 SCRA 1.
32 333 Phil. 508; 265 SCRA 653 (1996).
33 Supra note 28.
34 Supra note 29 at p. 145.
633
VOL. 533, SEPTEMBER 21, 2007 633

nary injunction or restraining order and not due to

respondent’s error or delay in taking action or any other
fault.” It was only an aside that the Court even mentioned
that the respondent judge had already resigned. Thus, this
case cannot be the basis for enjoining the administrative
case against herein petitioner.
35
In Zamudio v. Peñas, Jr., an administrative complaint
for dishonorable conduct was filed against the respondent
judge. The Court did not exculpate him from
administrative liability, despite his retirement. The Court
unequivocally declared: “The jurisdiction of the Court over
this case was, therefore, not lost when the respondent
retired from the judiciary and, in the exercise of its power
over the respondent as a member of the bar, the Court may
36
36
compel him to support his illegitimate daughters.” The
Court merely mitigated the penalty when it took into
account the fact that respondent’s dishonorable conduct
occurred before his appointment as a judge, along with the
fact that he had reached compulsory retirement
37
age during
the pendency of the administrative
38
case.
In Pardo v. Cunanan, the Court did not dismiss the
administrative case against the respondent government
employee, but merely imposed a lesser penalty of one-
month suspension for her failure to disclose the fact that
she had a pending administrative case when she applied
for another government post. In mitigating the penalty, the
Court considered her good faith, as well as her resignation
from her previous post. The Court took into account the
notice of acceptance of her resignation, stating that her
“services while employed in this office have been
satisfactory and your future application
39
for reinstatement
may be favorably considered.”
_______________
35 Supra note 30.

36 Id., at p. 9.
37 Id.
38 Supra note 31.
39 Id., at p. 3.
634

40
In Mendoza v. Tiongson, this Court refused to accept the
resignations filed by the respondents, which were intended
solely to allow them to evade the penalties this Court
would impose against them. This ruling cannot be
construed as a bar against filing administrative cases
against government employees who have been separated
from their employment, for what would stop the latter from
merely abandoning their posts to evade administrative
charges against them? To the contrary, this ruling can only
strengthen this Court’s resolve to diligently continue
hearing administrative cases against erring government
employees, even after they are separated from employment.
To summarize, none of the rulings in the aforecited
cases can justify the dismissal of the administrative case
filed against herein petitioner simply because she had filed
her certificate of candidacy. The circumstances of the
instant case41are vastly different from those in42

Diamalon v.
Quintillian and Vda. de Recario v. Aquino, in which the
respondent judges were able to present valid and
meritorious defenses in the administrative complaints filed
against them. Petitioner in this case did not even attempt
to properly account for the cash shortage of P4,080,799.77
from the checks and funds that were in her custody. On the
other hand, the respondent43
government employees
44
in
Zamudio v. Peñas, Jr. and Pardo v. Cunanan, were not
absolved of their administrative liability; rather, the Court
merely mitigated the45 penalty it imposed upon them. In
Mendoza v. Tiongson, the Court emphatically denounced
the contemptible attempt of government employees to
elude the consequences of their wrongdoings by quitting
their jobs. It is clear that this Court had dismissed ad-
_______________
40 Supra note 32.

41Supra note 28.
42 Supra note 29.
43 Supra note 30.
44 Supra note 31.
45 Supra note 32.
635
VOL. 533, SEPTEMBER 21, 2007 635

ministrative cases, taking into consideration the

resignation or retirement of the civil servants who
presented meritorious defenses and, in certain cases, even
mitigated the penalties of those who were later found
guilty of the administrative charge. But this Court has
never abetted government employees who deliberately set
out to effect their separation from service as a means of
escaping administrative proceedings that would be
instituted against them.
Petitioner relies on Section 66 of the Omnibus Election
Code to exculpate her from an administrative charge. The
aforementioned provision reads:
“Any person holding a public appointive officer or position,

including active members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines,
and officers and employees in government-owned or controlled
corporations, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his
office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy.”
Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code should be read in

connection with Sections 46(b)(26) and 55, Chapters 6 and
7, Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of the Administrative Code of
1987:
Section 44. Discipline: General Provisions:

xxxx
(b) The following shall be grounds for disciplinary action:
xxxx
(26) Engaging directly or indirectly in partisan political
activities by one holding a non-political office.
xxxx
Section 55. Political Activity.—No officer or employee in the
Civil Service including members of the Armed Forces, shall
engage directly or indirectly in any partisan political activity or
take part in any election except to vote nor shall he use his official
authority or influence to coerce the political activity of any other
person or body.
Clearly, the act of filing a Certificate of Candidacy while

one is employed in the civil service constitutes a just cause
for termination of employment for appointive officials.
Section 66
636

of the Omnibus Election Code, in considering an appointive

official ipso facto resigned, merely provides for the
immediate implementation of the penalty for the prohibited
act of engaging in partisan political activity. This provision
was not intended, and should not be used, as a defense
against an administrative case for acts committed during
government service.
46
Section 47 of the Administrative Code of 1987 provides
for the authority of heads of provinces to investigate and
decide matters involving disciplinary actions against
employees under their jurisdiction. Thus, the Provincial
Governor acted in accordance with law when it ordered the
creation of an independent body to investigate the
administrative complaint filed against petitioner for
dishonesty, grave misconduct and malversation of public
funds through falsification of official documents in
connection with acts committed while petitioner was
employed as Cashier IV in the Office of the Provincial
Treasurer of Benguet.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant Petition is

DENIED and the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. SP No. 53323, promulgated on 7 March 2001, is
AFFIRMED. The Office of the Provincial Governor of
Benguet is hereby DIRECTED to proceed with
Administrative Case No. 98-01 against the petitioner,
Esther S. Pagano, for dishonesty, grave misconduct and
malversation of public funds through falsification of official
documents. Costs against the petitioner.
_______________
46 Section 47. Disciplinary Jurisdiction. x x x

xxxx
(2) The Secretaries and heads of agencies and instrumentalities,
provinces, cities and municipalities shall have jurisdiction to investigate
and decide matters involving disciplinary action against officers and
employees under their jurisdiction. x x x. (Chapter 6, Subtitle A, Title I,
Book V.)
637
VOL. 533, SEPTEMBER 21, 2007 637

Dauz vs. Echavez
SO ORDERED.
Ynares-Santiago (Chairperson), Austria-Martinez,

Nachura and Reyes, JJ., concur.
Petition denied, assailed decision affirmed.
Note.—The death or retirement of any judicial officer

from the service does not preclude the finding of any
administrative liability to which he shall still be
answerable. (Loyao, Jr. vs. Caube, 402 SCRA 33 [2003])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

19 Pagano V Nazarro PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

19 Pagano V Nazarro PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

11/18/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 533

622 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

ESTHER S. PAGANO, petitioner, vs. JUAN NAZARRO,

Administrative Law; Public Officers; Dismissal; Resignation;

VOL. 533, SEPTEMBER 21, 2007 623

Pagano vs. Nazarro, Jr.

does not preclude the finding of any administrative liability to

Same; Same; Same; Same; Instant case is not moot and

service.—A case becomes moot and academic only when there is

Same; Same; Same; Same; An employee’s act of tendering his

Same; Same; Courts cannot overemphasize the need for

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lyssa G.S. Pagano-Calde for petitioner.

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under

1 Penned by Associate Justice Eliezer R. De Los Santos with Associate

VOL. 533, SEPTEMBER 21, 2007 625

that she had merely acted under the express direction of

626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

P4,080,799.77, and not just the initial cash shortage of

Omnibus Election Code, petitioner was already deemed

“Any person holding a public appointive office or position,

Thus, it declared that even if the committee created by the

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby

1. Finding that the Committee of which the respondents are

13 Id., at pp. 97-98.

VOL. 533, SEPTEMBER 21, 2007 627

2. Finding that the Committee has acted with grave abuse of

5. Declaring the writ of preliminary injunction dated

Respondents filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals. In

WHETHER OR NOT A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE WHO HAS

628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

ADMINISTRATIVELY CHARGED UNDER

Petitioner argues that a government employee who has

out to evade administrative liability when facing

VOL. 533, SEPTEMBER 21, 2007 629

tion from service, soon after an administrative case has

days after the Provincial Treasurer asked her to explain

630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

“Cessation from office of respondent by resignation or retirement

Unlike the previously discussed case (Baquerfo), the

recomputed by the COA at P4,080,799.77. With all the

“Verily, the resignation of Judge Quitain which was accepted by

26 Id., at pp. 19-20.

VOL. 533, SEPTEMBER 21, 2007 631

deserves to receive the corresponding censure and a penalty

This Court cannot countenance the petitioner’s puerile

“Section 48. Procedures in Administrative Cases Against Non-

At the time petitioner filed her certificate of candidacy,

28 139 Phil. 654; 29 SCRA 347 (1969).

632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

basis, as there is nothing irregular in the act of the

29 Adm. Case No. 212-J, 22 November 1974, 61 SCRA 144.

VOL. 533, SEPTEMBER 21, 2007 633

nary injunction or restraining order and not due to

35 Supra note 30.

634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

instant case41are vastly different from those in42

40 Supra note 32.

VOL. 533, SEPTEMBER 21, 2007 635

ministrative cases, taking into consideration the

“Any person holding a public appointive officer or position,