This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-02-02 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| As a preliminary matter, we take note of the fact that respondent Nuñez has filed his resignation on September 5, 2008, which was subsequently accepted by the Court, subject to the usual clearance requirements and without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings in the instant administrative case. Nonetheless, the fact of his resignation and our approval thereof does not render moot the complaint against him. Our jurisdiction over him is not lost by the mere fact that he resigned during the pendency of the case. To deprive this Court of authority to pronounce his innocence or guilt of the charges is undoubtedly fraught with injustices and pregnant with dreadful and dangerous implications.[1] What would prevent a corrupt and unscrupulous government employee from committing abuses and other condemnable acts knowing fully well that he would soon be beyond the pale of the law and immune to all administrative penalties?[2] Resignation should be used neither as an escape nor as an easy way out to evade administrative liability by court personnel facing administrative sanction.[3] As we held in Atty. Perez v. Judge Abiera,[4] "[i]f only for reasons of public policy, this Court must assert and maintain its jurisdiction over members of the judiciary and other officials under its supervision and control for acts performed in office which are inimical to the service and prejudicial to the interests of litigants and the general public. If innocent, respondent official merits vindication of his name and integrity as he leaves the government which he served well and faithfully; if guilty, he deserves to receive the corresponding censure and a penalty proper and imposable under the situation". | |||||
|
2005-04-06 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| ... To deprive the Court of authority to pronounce his innocence or guilt of the charges against him is undoubtedly fraught with injustice and pregnant with dreadful and dangerous implications. For, what remedy would the people have against a civil servant who resorts to wrongful and illegal conduct during his last days in office? What would prevent a corrupt and unscrupulous government employee from committing abuses and other condemnable acts knowing fully well that he would soon be beyond the pale of the law and immune to all administrative penalties? As we held in Perez v. Abiera,[23] "[if] only for reasons of public policy, this Court must assert and maintain its jurisdiction over members of the judiciary and other officials under its supervision and control for acts performed in office which are inimical to the service and prejudicial to the interests of litigants and the general public. If innocent, respondent official merits vindication of his name and integrity as he leaves the government which he served well and faithfully; if guilty, he deserves to receive the corresponding censure and a penalty proper and imposable under the situation."[24] | |||||