ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ A.M. NO. P-98-1284. June 20, 2000]

JUDGE ABRAHAM D. CA�A vs. ROBERTO B. GEBUSION

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 20 2000.

A.M. No. P-98-1284 (Judge Abraham D. Ca�a vs. Roberto B. Gebusion.)

On March 30, 2000, this Court rendered a decision dismissing respondent Roberto B. Gebusion on the following grounds: (a) being notoriously undesirable; (b) physical or mental incapacity or disability due to a vicious habit; (c) going on AWOL for five months; and (d) serious misconduct. However, it appears that on March 6, 2000, respondent had died, as evidenced by a certified photocopy of his death certificate. For resolution now is a motion for reconsideration filed on May 12, 2000 by Emerita C. Gebusion, respondent's widow, asking that respondent's benefits be granted in favor of his heirs.

In several cases, the death of the respondent has not prevented this Court from deciding administrative cases on the merits in order to exonerate him of the charges and clear his name or to mete the proper penalty. 1 Hermosa v. Paraiso 62 SCRA 361 (1975); Yaranon v. Rubio, 66 SCRA 67 (1975); Morales v. Lotuaco, 114 SCRA 405 (1982); Guevara v. Calalang, 202 Phil. 328 (1982); Cadelina v. Manhilot, 157 SCRA 118 (1988); Ma�ozca v. Domagas, 248 SCRA 625 (1995). This Court retains the authority to look into the merits of his case and determine the truth or falsity of the charges against him. Thus, in an analogous case wherein the respondent had retired or resigned from public service before the case was decided, this Court proceeded with the case. It held:

. . . (T)he jurisdiction that was Ours at the of the filing of the administrative complaint was not lost by the mere fact that the respondent public official had ceased to be in office during the pendency of his case. The Court retains its jurisdiction either to pronounce the respondent official innocent of the charges or declare him guilty thereof. A contrary rule would be fraught with injustices and pregnant with dreadful and dangerous implications. . . . If innocent, respondent official merits vindication of his name and integrity as he leaves the government which he has served well and faithfully; if guilty, he deserves to receive the corresponding censure and a penalty proper and imposable under the situation.2 Zarate v. Romanillos, 242 SCRA 593 (1995) citing People v. Valenzuela, 135 SCRA 712 (1985) and Perez v. Abiera, 64 SCRA 302 (1975).

On the same principle, the death of respondent in this case terminated his government service, rendering his dismissal by this Court beyond execution. His death, however, did not abate the administrative case against him. Suspension or dismissal from the service is not, after all, the only penalty that may be imposed if respondent is found guilty warranting such penalty. His retirement and other benefits may likewise be forfeited. Thus, in Zarate v. Romanillos,3 Supra . See also Office of the Court Administrator v. Ferrer, 283 SCRA 388 (1997). the Court found the respondent official guilty of serious misconduct which would warrant his dismissal had he not resigned from the service. But, since the respondent could no longer be dismissed, the Court instead ordered the forfeiture of all his leave and retirement benefits and privileges and declared him disqualified from employment in any branch or instrumentality of government, including government-owned or controlled agencies or corporations.

Similarly, in this case, the Court found respondent guilty of the charges against him, the details of which are contained it the decision of March 30, 2000, and imposed the penalty of dismissal. In view of these findings, the Court cannot in good conscience reconsider the penalty meted on him. However, since dismissal could no longer be effected, consistent with the ruling in the aforecited cases, the death benefits and other privileges to which his heirs may be entitled must be forfeited.

WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED.

Vitug, J., is abroad on official business.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE