SC Decisions: RESPONDENT ALREADYSEPARATED FROM SERVICE

Case against the respondent was dismissed

The disquisition of the RTC fully explained the rights and obligations
of the parties, particularly those of the petitioner, and, to an extent, even
sided with her by holding that MMDA could not anymore subject her to
administrative disciplinary investigation by virtue of her
intervening separation from the service. The disquisition did not contain
any errors of judgment on the part of the RTC, which even correctly
indicated to her that she should bring a special civil action
for mandamus instead in order to compel MMDA to settle
her separation pay.  Hence, her proper course of action should
|||

be mandamus instead of coming directly to the Court for redress. The

dismissal of her action for specific performance is thus fully warranted.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review
on certiorari; and ORDERS the petitioner to pay the costs of suit.
 (De Castro v. Metropolitan Manila Development Authority, G.R. No. 159645
|||

(Notice), [November 26, 2014])

Furthermore, respondent had already resigned from the service since

September 30, 1972. Any further investigation of the complaint would be a
mere waste of time and effort as this administrative case which at its worst
could result in respondent's separation from the service, has
become moot and academic.  (Vda. de Recario v. Aquino, A.C. No. 212-J
|||

(Resolution), [November 22, 1974], 158 PHIL 806-809)

Obviously, the petitioner's inclusion in the aforesaid list and her consequent
summary dismissal from the government service are unwarranted, and in
effect, deprived the petitioner of her right to due process. Hence,
petitioner's summary dismissal is null and void. 19
Petitioner is in no way to blame for the unreasonably long delay in
the investigation of the administrative case against her. Because of the
protracted investigation, she reached the compulsory age of retirement
without any decision being reached in the administrative case against her.
Nonetheless, she is entitled to such a decision. 

WHEREFORE, the petition to have Melecia C. Macabuhay

appointed Public Schools Superintendent of the New Division of Batangas,
being moot and academic in view of her reaching the age of compulsory
retirement, is hereby dismissed. However, the prayer in her Reply with
Supplemental Pleading, dated November 6, 1976, is
 granted. Administrative Case No. R-423 against Melecia C. Macabuhay is
consequently considered dismissed and terminated and she is absolved
and declared innocent of all the charges against her. Furthermore, she is
hereby granted all the retirement benefits she is entitled to under the law at
the time of her compulsory retirement on August 25, 1976 20 and the
immediate payment of such benefits by the Government Service Insurance
System is hereby ordered. Without costs
 (Macabuhay v. Manuel, G.R. No. L-40872, [December 5, 1978], 176 PHIL
|||

484-498)
Case against the respondent was not dismissed
Verily, the resignation of Judge Quitain which was accepted by the
Court without prejudice does not render moot and academic the
instant administrative case. The jurisdiction that the Court had at the time
of the filing of the administrative complaint is not lost by the mere fact that
the respondent judge by his resignation and its consequent acceptance —
without prejudice — by this Court, has ceased to be in office during the
pendency of this case. The Court retains its authority to pronounce the
respondent official innocent or guilty of the charges against him. A contrary
rule would be fraught with injustice and pregnant with dreadful and
dangerous implications. 30 Indeed, if innocent, the 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. 31
WHEREFORE, in view of our finding that JUDGE JAIME V.
QUITAIN is guilty of grave misconduct which would have warranted his
dismissal from the service had he not resigned during the pendency of this
case, he is hereby meted the penalty of a fine of P40,000.00. It appearing
that he has yet to apply for his retirement benefits and other privileges, if
any, the Court likewise ORDERS the FORFEITURE of all benefits, except
earned leave credits which Judge Quitain may be entitled to, and he is
PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED from reinstatement and appointment to
any branch, instrumentality or agency of the government, including
government-owned and/or controlled corporations.
|||  (Re: Quitain, JBC No. 013, [August 22, 2007], 557 PHIL 478-495)
A case becomes moot and academic only when there is no more
actual controversy between the parties or no useful purpose can be served
in passing upon the merits of the case. 22 The instant case is
not moot and academic, despite the petitioner's  separation from
government service. Even if the most severe of administrative sanctions
— that of separation from service — may no longer be imposed on the
petitioner, there are other penalties which may be imposed on her if she is
later found guilty of administrative offenses charged against her, namely,
 the disqualification to hold any government office and the forfeiture of
benefits.
Moreover, this Court views with suspicion the precipitate act of a
government employee in effecting his or her separation from service, soon
after an administrative case has been initiated against him or her. An
employee's act of tendering his or her resignation immediately after the
discovery of the anomalous transaction is indicative of his or her guilt as
flight in criminal cases. 23
 (Pagano v. Nazarro, Jr., G.R. No. 149072, [September 21, 2007], 560 PHIL
|||

96-113)