CASE DIGEST /; OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN VS. TEODORA T. HERMOSURA G.R. No. 207606 GAERLAN

 FACTS : The present petition for review on certiorari challenges the CA’s Decision dated October 23, 2012 and Resolution dated May 23, 2013, which reversed the Ombudsman’s January 29, 2010 Decision and October 14, 2010 Order finding Teodora Hermosura (a.k.a. Teodora Cornelio) guilty of dishonesty. The facts show that Hermosura, formerly a Computer Operator II at the University of Makati, acted as an agent for Brenda Ortiz’s lending business but allegedly failed to remit over P40,000,000 in collections. Ortiz filed an administrative complaint for dishonesty, which the Ombudsman upheld despite Hermosura’s optional retirement in June 2008, ruling that retirement did not preclude her administrative liability. The CA, however, reversed this, holding that there was no evidence Hermosura retired to pre-empt an imminent administrative case, and that her bona fide retirement rendered her an ineligible subject for administrative investigation. The CA thus annulled and set aside the Ombudsman’s decision and denied its motion for reconsideration. The Ombudsman now questions whether it erred in taking cognizance of the complaint and whether Hermosura should be held administratively liable.

ISSUE : WON the respondent can be held administratively liable 

HELD : The Court rules that the respondent, Teodora Hermosura a.k.a. Teodora Cornelio, can still be held administratively liable despite her voluntary retirement, as the circumstances indicate she sought optional retirement to pre-empt the filing of an administrative complaint regarding her failure to remit Ortiz’s loan collections. Precedents such as Office of the Court Administrator v. Juan and Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas v. Office of the Ombudsman and Jamorabo establish that voluntary resignation or retirement does not bar administrative liability when undertaken to evade accountability. The respondent’s failure to remit over P40 million to Ortiz constitutes dishonesty under CSC Resolution No. 06-0538; although her actions do not meet the criteria for serious dishonesty, they are sufficient to establish simple dishonesty, punishable by suspension of one month and one day to six months. Given her retirement, the penalty is a fine equivalent to six months’ salary, to be deducted from her retirement benefits. Accordingly, the CA decisions of October 23, 2012 and May 23, 2013 are reversed and set aside, finding Hermosura administratively guilty of simple dishonesty.