Flores v. Interino
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Maria Celia A. Flores, Branch Clerk of Court, filed a Letter-Complaint against respondent Mary Lourd R. Interino, Clerk III, for Dereliction of Duty. Procedural History: In a Resolution dated September 17, 2018, the Court found respondent guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty for failure to release court decisions, orders, and other processes on time, in violation of Section 1, Canon IV of A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC (Code of Conduct for Court Personnel). The penalty imposed was suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day without pay. The Petition: Respondent, in a Letter dated November 28, 2018, sought clarification regarding the penalty, stating she had resigned and left her post effective July 31, 2018, prior to the September 17, 2018 Resolution. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) confirmed her resignation and recommended imposing a fine equivalent to her salary for one (1) month and one (1) day in lieu of suspension.
Issue(s)
Whether resignation from office can be a way to evade administrative liability when a court personnel is facing administrative sanction. Whether the penalty of suspension can be converted to a fine when the respondent has already resigned.
Ruling
The Court resolved to AMEND the Resolution dated September 17, 2018. The penalty of suspension from office for one (1) month and one (1) day without pay was DELETED, and in lieu thereof, a FINE equivalent to respondent Mary Lourd R. Interino's salary for one (1) month and one (1) day based on the prevailing rate on her last day at work was imposed. The Financial Management Office, OCA was directed to compute the fine and deduct it from her accrued leave credits, or if insufficient, to have the respondent pay it directly to the Court within thirty (30) days from notice. The Resolution was affirmed in all other respects.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether resignation can dismiss an administrative case: The Court stressed that resignation from office is not a way out to evade administrative liability when a court personnel is facing administrative sanction. It is well-settled that resignation does not render an administrative case moot and academic, especially when the offense was committed while the individual was still in public service. The liability attaches from the time of the commission of the offense, and the subsequent resignation does not erase this fact or the Court's power to impose sanctions. On converting suspension to a fine: Considering that it was no longer possible for the respondent to serve the penalty of suspension due to her prior resignation, the Court found it appropriate to adopt the OCA's recommendation. The Court imposed a fine equivalent to the respondent's salary for one (1) month and one (1) day, computed based on the prevailing rate on her last day of work. This is in line with Section 19, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987), which allows for the imposition of a fine instead of suspension, provided certain conditions are met.
Main Doctrine
Resignation from office does not extinguish administrative liability incurred while in public service, and a fine may be imposed in lieu of suspension if the latter cannot be served.