Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Before the Court is the letter¹ dated June 20, 2019 of the surviving spouse of Rodrigo Ramos, Jr. (Rodrigo): (a) informing the Court that Rodrigo passed away on December 5, 2016, attaching therewith an original copy of the Philippine Statistics Authority authenticated Death Certificate² of Rodrigo; and (b) imploring the Court to reduce the penalty of suspension of six (6) months and one (1) day without pay meted on him in its Decision³ dated February 21, 2017 in A.M. No. SCC-10-15-P to fine in view of his demise.

Jurisdiction over an administrative case is not lost by the demise of the respondent public official during the pendency of his case.⁴ This is especially true when the respondent had already been given the opportunity to answer the complaint and substantiate his defenses,⁵ as in this case, and the fact of his death has been reported to the Court only after a decision was rendered in the administrative case against him. Thus, the Court retains its jurisdiction either to pronounce the respondent official innocent of the charges or declare him guilty thereof because a contrary rule would be fraught with injustices and pregnant with dreadful and dangerous implications.⁶

However, considering Rodrigo's demise, the penalty of suspension imposed on him is no longer possible. In a previous case⁷ where the respondent was similarly found guilty of frequent unauthorized absences but was no longer in the service at the time of the promulgation of the decision, the Court imposed a fine of P20,000.00 in lieu of suspension. The Court finds it apt to impose the same penalty here.

Further, the February 21, 2017 Decision also found Rodrigo guilty of violation of reasonable office rules and regulations, a light offense punishable with reprimand for the first offense, and was accordingly sanctioned with reprimand.⁸ As reprimanding him would no longer be possible, the said charge had become moot and academic.⁹

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated February 21, 2017 in A.M. No. SCC-10-15-P (Formerly A.M. No. 06-3-03-SCC) is hereby MODIFIED. Respondent Rodrigo Ramos, Jr. (Rodrigo) is found GUILTY of frequent unauthorized absences, loafing or frequent unauthorized absences from duty during regular office hours, and FINED in the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) to be taken from whatever benefits he may be entitled to under existing laws, and subject to the outcome of OCA IPI No. 11-37-SCC-P and the findings in the audit of his accounts in the Shari'a Circuit Court, Maimbung, Sulu. The charge against him for violation of reasonable office rules and regulations is DISMISSED for being moot and academic.

Let a copy of this Resolution be attached to the personal record of Rodrigo.

SO ORDERED.

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that on November 12, 2019 a Resolution, copy attached herewith, was rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled administrative matters, the original of which was received by this Office on December 20, 2019 at 12:00 p.m.

Endnotes:

^* Sherdalyn in some part of the records.

¹Rollo (A.M. No. SCC-10-15-P), pp. 156-157.

² Id. at 158.

³ The said Decision found Rodrigo guilty, among others, of frequent unauthorized absences, and loafing or frequent unauthorized absences from duty during regular office hours, and was accordingly suspended for six months and one (1) day without pay, with a stern warning that similar acts would be dealt with more severely. (Id. at 137-155. See also Arabani, Jr. v. Arabani, 806 Phil. 129 [2017].)

⁴ See Office of the Ombudsman v. Pacuribot, G.R. No. 193336, September 26, 2018. Thus, in Hermosa v. Paraiso (159 Phil. 417, 419 [1975]), and Office of the Court Administrator v. Saguyod (429 Phil. 421, 432 [2002]), the Court proceeded to resolve therein respondents' administrative cases notwithstanding that death has already separated them from the service.

⁵ See Office of the Court Administrator v. Saguyod, id. at 430.

⁶ See Office of the Ombudsman v. Pacuribot, supra note 4.

⁷ See Office of the Court Administrator v. Cobarrubias, A.M. No. P-15-3379, November 22, 2017, 845 SCRA 644, 656.

⁸ See Section 22, Rule XIV of the Civil Service Rules.

⁹ See Office of the Court Administrator v. Cabato, 804 Phil. 145, 170 and 185 (2017).