A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 02-1321-P, 16 July 2013
Posted By: Alaine Joyce on July 24, 2018
FACTS:
This administrative case stemmed from an undated anonymous letter-complaint charging Nonita Catena (Catena), a Court Stenographer III of Branch 50 of the RTC in Puerto Princessa City, Palawan with gross dishonesty she allegedly committed in connection with her Civil Service eligibility accusing her of having caused another person to take the Civil Service Eligibility Examination in her stead. The investigation of the OCA revealed discrepancies between the pictures, signatures and other details contained in the Career Service Examination permit submitted to the Civil Service Commission, on one hand, and the 201 file of Catena, on the other.
Despite repeated directives to Catena to comment on the anonymous complaint, she failed to do so. On March 9, 2005, Judge Nelia Yap-Fernandez informed the Court that Catena had already resigned from her position effective on January 2, 2003. The OCA recommended her dismissal from the service, with prejudice to re-employment in any branch, agency or instrumentality of the Government.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Catena is guilty of gross dishonesty.
HELD:
Yes. Considering that Catena's misrepresentation of her eligibility concerned a material fact that enabled her to secure her appointment equated to her deliberate fabrication of the truth concerning eligibility, she was guilty of gross dishonesty. She should not be allowed to remain in the service of the Judiciary because no other office in the Government exacted a greater demand for mortal righteousness from an official or employee than a position in the Judiciary.
Catena's resignation from the service did not cause the Court to lose its jurisdiction to proceed against her in this administrative case. Her cessation from office by virtue of her intervening resignation did not warrant the dismissal of the administrative complaint against her, for the act complained of had been committed when she was still in the service. Indeed, the Court's jurisdiction at the time of the filing of the administrative complaint was not lost because the respondent had ceased in office during the pendency of the case. #END
