CONCERNED CITIZEN, COMPLAINANT, VS. NONITA V. CATENA, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 50, PUERTO PRINCESA, PALAWAN, RESPONDENT.

Concerned Citizen versus Catena

The Case

This is an administrative case in which an anonymous complainant, styling himself or herself as a Concerned Citizen, charged Nonita Catena, a Court Stenographer III of Branch 50 of the Regional Trial Court in Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, with gross dishonesty in connection with her Civil Service eligibility. The accusation was that another person took the Civil Service Eligibility Examination in her place in 1998, and that she nonetheless passed off the resulting eligibility as her own to obtain a permanent appointment. The case matters because it fixes the rule that resignation from the service does not defeat the Court's jurisdiction over an erring employee, and that the accessory penalties of dismissal survive even when the principal penalty of dismissal can no longer be implemented.

Procedural History

The case began as an undated anonymous letter-complaint. Justice Jose P. Perez, then a Deputy Court Administrator, forwarded it to the Legal Division of the Office of the Court Administrator for investigation. The investigation revealed discrepancies between the pictures, signatures and other details in the Career Service Examination permit submitted to the Civil Service Commission and those in Catena's 201 file. The Court Administrator then directed Catena to comment, and when she failed to do so despite extensions and tracer letters, the Court issued a series of resolutions requiring her to comment and later to show cause why she should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt.

In the meantime, Judge Nelia Yap-Fernandez informed the Court that Catena had resigned effective on January 2, 2003. The Court continued its efforts to serve its resolutions, eventually directing the National Bureau of Investigation to locate her. The complaint was later re-docketed as a regular administrative matter on the recommendation of the Court Administrator, who proposed that Catena be held liable for dishonesty and dismissed from the service. The Court ultimately dispensed with her comment and referred the complaint to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report and recommendation. The case was resolved by the Supreme Court as an administrative matter.

Facts

An undated anonymous letter-complaint reached the Court, alleging that in 1998 somebody took the stenographer's examination in Catena's behalf in Leyte, and that she allegedly passed it, giving her a permanent position as stenographer. The Office of the Court Administrator investigated and found discrepancies between the pictures, signatures and other details in the Career Service Examination permit submitted to the Civil Service Commission and those in Catena's 201 file.

Catena was repeatedly directed to comment on the complaint. She asked for a thirty-day extension, which was granted, but she never filed a comment. Tracer letters and show-cause orders followed, yet she remained silent. On March 9, 2005, Judge Yap-Fernandez formally informed the Court that Catena had already resigned effective on January 2, 2003. Efforts to serve her at her known addresses failed, with the mail returned as unclaimed or because she had moved out, until the National Bureau of Investigation located her in Puerto Princesa City in July 2011.

In her defense, Catena submitted her approved leave application and daily time records for the period of the examination. The Court found these insufficient, because they showed only that she applied for and was granted leave and did not report to her office, not that she personally took the examination. She had also promised to submit a certification from the Negros Navigation Company, affidavits of Leyte residents, and Civil Service Commission records from Leyte, but she never produced them.

Issues

• Whether or not Catena's resignation from the service effective on January 2, 2003 divested the Court of jurisdiction to proceed against her in the administrative case.
• Whether or not Catena is guilty of gross dishonesty for misrepresenting in her Personal Data Sheet that she held a Sub-Professional Civil Service Eligibility when another person had taken the examination in her place.
• Whether or not the penalty of dismissal may still be imposed on Catena despite her intervening resignation, and what accessory penalties attach.

Applicable Provisions

Section 52, paragraph A, subparagraph 1 of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service classifies dishonesty as a grave offense, and the Court states that it is punishable by dismissal even at the first offense. It bears on the case because it fixes the principal penalty for Catena's offense.

Section 52. Classification of Offenses. A. Administrative offenses with corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave or light, depending on their gravity or depravity and effects on the government service. 1. The following are grave offenses with their corresponding penalties: a. Dishonesty — 1st offense — Dismissal;

Section 57 of the same Rules lists the administrative disabilities that are accessories to administrative penalties. It bears on the case because it identifies the disabilities that accompany Catena's penalty.

Section 57. Administrative Disabilities/Accessories to Administrative Penalties. Cancellation of eligibility Forfeiture of retirement benefits. Disqualification for reinstatement or reemployment. Disqualification for promotion. Bar from taking any Civil Service Examination

Section 58 of the same Rules states the administrative disabilities inherent in certain penalties. It bears on the case because it spells out that dismissal carries cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification for reemployment.

Section 58. Administrative Disabilities Inherent in Certain Penalties. a. The penalty of dismissal shall carry with it that of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and the perpetual disqualification for reemployment in the government service, unless otherwise provided in the decision.

Section 56, paragraph e of Rule IV of the same Rules fixes the ceiling for the penalty of fine. It bears on the case because Catena's resignation made dismissal impossible, so a fine was imposed instead.

Section 56. Administrative Penalties. e. The penalty of fine shall be in an amount not exceeding the salary for six months had respondent not resigned, the rate for which is that obtaining upon at the time of her resignation.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Catena's resignation did not cause it to lose jurisdiction. The act complained of had been committed while she was still in the service, and her cessation from office did not render the administrative case moot and academic. Otherwise, the Court warned, exacting responsibility for administrative liabilities would be easily avoided or evaded.

On the second issue, the Court found Catena guilty of gross dishonesty. Her claim in her Personal Data Sheet that she held a Sub-Professional Civil Service Eligibility with a rating of 86.48 percent was entirely false. Her approved leave application and daily time records did not establish that she personally took the examination, and she never produced the documentary evidence she had promised. Her prolonged silence despite ample opportunity to comment was construed as her implied admission of the truth of the accusation.

On the third issue, the Court held that dismissal was the appropriate penalty, with cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in the government service, though it did not forfeit her accrued leave credits. Because her resignation meant dismissal could no longer be implemented, the Court imposed a fine instead, in an amount not exceeding the salary for six months at the rate obtaining at the time of her resignation. Even so, the Court ruled that she must still suffer the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from reemployment, because a contrary holding would let an erring employee avoid the accessory penalty by the simple expedient of resigning.

Doctrine

First, resignation from the service does not divest the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over an administrative case against a court employee, and does not render the case moot and academic, where the act complained of was committed while the employee was still in the service. Second, gross dishonesty in the Civil Service is a grave offense punishable by dismissal even at the first offense. Third, where the respondent has meanwhile resigned, the penalty of dismissal can no longer be implemented and a fine is imposed instead, in an amount not exceeding the salary for six months at the rate obtaining at the time of resignation. Fourth, the accessory penalties of dismissal, including cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in the government service, still attach even when the principal penalty is reduced to a fine, because resignation must not be used as a convenient means to evade administrative liability.

Disposition

The Court found Nonita Catena guilty of gross dishonesty and ordered her to pay a fine equivalent to her salary for six months computed at the salary rate for her former position at the time of her resignation, with prejudice to her reemployment in any branch of the Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that resignation is not a convenient means or strategy to evade administrative liability, so the accessory penalties of dismissal survive even when a fine is imposed in lieu of dismissal. Examiners like to use this case to test the rule on jurisdiction over resigned employees and the accessory penalties that attach to a finding of gross dishonesty.