OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. ADMER L. FERRER, UTILITY WORKER I, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BRANCH 2, GENERAL SANTOS CITY, RESPONDENT.

Office of the Court Administrator versus Ferrer

The Case

This is an administrative case brought by the Office of the Court Administrator against Admer L. Ferrer, a utility worker at Branch 2 of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of General Santos City. He was charged with dishonesty and grave misconduct arising from the loss of a government firearm and ammunition that had been offered in evidence in a criminal case pending before his own court. The case matters because it tests a tempting shortcut: the investigating judge and the Office of the Court Administrator both recommended dismissal on the ground that the respondent had already resigned, making the case moot. The Supreme Court refused that shortcut and instead laid down the rule that resignation does not wipe out administrative liability, and that retirement benefits may be withheld, and even forfeited, to answer for it.

Procedural History

The case began as an administrative complaint filed by the Office of the Court Administrator on October 17, 1994. The respondent was required to answer, but he never did, despite a show cause resolution and later resolutions imposing a fine of 500 pesos, increased to 1,000 pesos, for his failure to answer. A copy of the resolution imposing the fine was returned because he was no longer at the address given. The Clerk of Court of Branch 2 reported that the respondent's parents said he had left their home after marrying in December 1995, without telling them where he lived. The Court then considered him to have waived his right to file an answer and referred the case to Executive Judge Teodoro A. Dizon, Junior of the Regional Trial Court of General Santos City for investigation, report, and recommendation. Because Judge Dizon had to undergo a cataract operation, the case was transferred to Executive Judge Antonio S. Alano. Judge Alano submitted his investigation report dated June 9, 1997, and the Office of the Court Administrator submitted a memorandum dated October 10, 1997, both recommending dismissal. The matter then came before the Supreme Court for consideration of those recommendations.

Facts

The respondent, Admer L. Ferrer, was a utility worker at Branch 2 of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of General Santos City. A 45 caliber pistol, three magazines, and nine rounds of live ammunition were lost. These items had been offered in evidence in a criminal case pending in that court. On the same incident, a criminal charge of qualified theft was filed against him, and the Office of the Court Administrator filed this administrative charge of dishonesty and grave misconduct.

On October 27, 1994, the respondent tendered his resignation effective that same day. On May 30, 1995, Pablo C. Caintic was appointed in his place, and the Civil Service Commission approved that appointment on June 7, 1995. To this day, the respondent has not claimed his retirement benefits. The Office of Administrative Services and the Fiscal Management and Budget Office had no knowledge of the administrative case; they learned of it only after receiving the Court's resolution of November 14, 1994 requiring the respondent to file his answer. His resignation was therefore accepted as part of the normal business of those offices.

Meanwhile, the respondent pleaded guilty to simple theft in the criminal case. He never controverted the evidence against him in this administrative case. Despite notices from the Court, including a citation for contempt for failure to file his answer, and despite the subpoena issued by Judge Alano, he chose to remain silent.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent's resignation from office rendered this administrative case moot and subject to dismissal.
• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct.
• Whether or not the respondent's retirement and other benefits may be forfeited despite his resignation.

Applicable Provisions

No statutory provision is quoted in the decision. The Court instead relied on its own ruling in Diamalon versus Quintillan, which it quoted as follows:

As an administrative proceeding is predicated on the holding of an office or position in the Government and there being no doubt as to the resignation of the respondent Judge having been accepted as of August 31, 1997, there is nothing to stand in the way of the dismissal of the administrative complaint against him.

This is the very ruling invoked by the investigating judge and the Office of the Court Administrator in recommending dismissal, and the Court had to decide whether it applied.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the rule in Diamalon versus Quintillan is not an iron-clad rule. Resignation does not automatically moot an administrative case. The Court declared that court employees with pending administrative cases may be allowed to retire, but payment of a portion of their retirement benefits may be withheld to answer for any administrative liability that may be adjudged against them. The Court also took notice of the lack of coordination between the Office of the Court Administrator and the Office of Administrative Services, which led to the acceptance of the resignation despite the pending case, and admonished the concerned officials to prevent a repeat of similar incidents.

On the second issue, the Court found the respondent guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct. There was no doubt as to his guilt, as shown by his plea of guilty to simple theft in the criminal case. He never controverted the evidence against him, and despite notices, a citation for contempt, and the subpoena issued by Judge Alano, he chose to remain silent.

On the third issue, having found him guilty, the Court declared his retirement and all other benefits, including leave credits, forfeited, and disqualified him from reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, the pendency of an administrative case is not extinguished by the respondent's resignation; the rule that resignation moots an administrative complaint is not an iron-clad rule. Second, court employees with pending administrative cases may be allowed to retire, but payment of a portion of their retirement benefits may be withheld to answer for any administrative liability that may be adjudged against them. Third, where guilt is established, as by a plea of guilty in the related criminal case and by the respondent's failure to controvert the evidence, the penalty may include forfeiture of retirement and all other benefits, including leave credits, and disqualification from reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations. These rules flow from the Court's reading of its own ruling in Diamalon versus Quintillan, which it declined to apply mechanically.

Disposition

The Court found the respondent guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct, declared his retirement and all other benefits, including leave credits, forfeited, and disqualified him from reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.

Remember This

Memorize this line: resignation is not an iron-clad defense to an administrative case, and retirement benefits may be withheld, and even forfeited, to answer for administrative liability. Examiners like to use this case to test whether resignation moots an administrative complaint, and to test the penalty of forfeiture of benefits and disqualification from government reemployment.