G.R. No. 200577 - CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, VS. CAROLINA P. JUEN.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , the motion for reconsideration of [the respondent] is hereby DENIED . Accordingly, [CSC] Resolution No. 06-1183 dated July 12, 2006, which affirmed the [CSCRO V] Order dated January 16, 2004 finding her guilty of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and imposing upon her the penalty of dismissal from the service with the accessory penalties of perpetual disqualification from entering the government service and from taking future Civil Service examinations, forfeiture of retirement benefits and cancellation of Civil Service eligibility, STANDS . [29] The respondent, thus, filed an appeal [30] before the CA. However, on April 1, 2009, the respondent's counsel informed the CA that the respondent died from ovarian cancer on December 23, 2008. [31] The respondent's counsel, however, manifested that the respondent's heirs are very much interested in the outcome of the petition because they will be benefited by whatever claims and benefits the respondent may be entitled to should a favorable judgment be rendered. [32] The Office of the Solicitor General, on behalf of the CSC, agreed that the case should continue on the ground that the "death of respondent in an administrative case does not preclude a finding of administrative liability." [33] Ruling of the CA In its Decision [34] dated July 8, 2011, the CA found that the CSC did not afford the respondent a hearing where she could present her case and submit evidence to support it. The CA stated: The [respondent] cannot be faulted for her being absence [sic] during the hearings set by the [CSCRO V]. It is of record that notice for the first hearing set on September 4, 2003 was received on the same day, while the notice for the second hearing was received by [the respondent] on November 11, 2003, or only two days before the hearing. [The respondent's] counsel was in Cebu City and the hearing was to be conducted in Legaspi City, it would be extremely unreasonable to expect [the respondent's] attendance. Evidently, [the respondent] was not given enough time to be present and her counsel before the [CSCRO V]. She was unlawfully deprived of her right to adduce evidence for her defense. [35] (Citations omitted) The CA stated that, pursuant to the Court's ruling in Ang Tibay and National Worker's Brotherhood v. The Court of Industrial Relations and National Labor Union, Inc. [36] and Abella, Jr. v. CSC , [37] the CSCRO V should have given the respondent another opportunity to present her evidence. Since the CSCRO V hastily admitted the evidence against the respondent, the documentary evidence which it based its findings on cannot be relied upon. [38] It, thus, set aside Resolutions No. 061183 and 071209 of the CSC. The CSC moved for reconsideration, [39] but the same was denied in Resolution [40] dated February 10, 2012 of the CA. Hence, this petition by the CSC arguing that the CSCRO V complied with all the requirements of due process and praying