162 OCA v.
Ampong
A.M. No. P-13-3132 (2014)
J. Perlas-Bernabe / Tita K
Subject Matter: public officers; termination of official relationship; dismissal as penalty
Summary:
Ampong was a Court Interpreter III. In 1996, CSC found Ampong guilty of Dishonesty, Grave Misconducr, and Conduct
prejudicial to the Best interest of the service for having taken the 1991 Civil Service Exam on behalf of another person.
Hence, CSC dismissed Ampong from service and imposed accessory penalties. The dismissal was affirmed by the SC.
Notwithstanding the dismissal, OCA’s financial management office continued releasing Ampong’s salary, benefits, and
allowances. Judge Infante informed OCA about the continued payment of salaries. In her comment, Ampong prayed that
the SC revisit its 2008 ruling. WON the Ampong had been dismissed from her employment. The SC held, yes, ampong
had been dismissed. Pursuant to immutability of judgment doctrine, Ampong could no longer seek the August 26, 2008
Decision’s modification and reversal. Consequently, the penalty of dismissal from service on account of Ampong’s
Dishonesty should be enforced in its full course.
Doctrines:
In line with Section 58(a) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (URACCS), the penalty of
dismissal carries with it the following administrative disabilities: 1) cancellation of civil service eligibility; 2) forfeiture of
retirement benefits; and 3) perpetual disqualification from reemployment in any government agency or instrumentality,
including any government-owned and controlled corporation or government financial institution.
o Ampong should be made to similarly suffer the same. However, despite Ampong’s dismissal on the
ground of dishonesty, she should be entitled to receive her accrued leave credits, if any, pursuant to
aforementioned provision of the URACCS, which does not include the forfeiture of the same.
Despite their dismissal from the service, government employees are entitled to the leave credits that they have earned
during the period of their employment. As a matter of fairness and law, they may not be deprived of such remuneration,
which they have earned prior to their dismissal.
Parties:
Petitioner OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR
SARAH P. AMPONG, COURT INTERPRETER III, RTC Br. 38 ALABEL, SARANGANI
Respondent
PROVINCE
Facts:
Ampong was a Court Interpreter III in RTC Br. 38 Alabel, Sarangani. Before he became a court interpreter, he was a
public school teacher.
August 1994 - CSC filed an administrative case against Ampong for Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct
Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service for having impersonated or taken the November 1991 Civil Service
Eligibility Examination for Teachers on behalf of one Evelyn B. Decir (Decir).
March 21, 1996 - CSC rendered a resolution dismissing her from service, imposing all accessory penalties, and
revoking her Professional Board Examination for Teachers (PBET) [Link] dismissal was affirmed by the CA. The
SC En Banc also affirmed her dismissal from service in its decision on August 26, 2008.
OCA’s Financial Management Office (FMO) did not receive any official directive regarding Ampong’s dismissal.
Hence, notwithstanding the dismissal, FMO continued to release her salaries and allowances.
March 15, 2011 - Judge Infante sent a letter to OCA, inquiring about the employment status of respondent Ampong.
Judge Infante informed OCA that despite Ampong’s dismissal from service by CSC, Ampong remained employed in
the RTC and had been continuously receiving all her monthly salary, benefits, allowances, and the like.
September 7, 2011 - FMO issued a Memorandum informing the OCA that it had started to withhold Ampong’s
salaries and allowances starting June 2011.
September 25, 2012 - In her Comment, Ampong prayed that the Court revisit its 2008 ruling despite its finality
because it might lead to unwarranted complications in its enforcement. Ampong also reiterated her argument that
the CSC did not have any jurisdiction over the case against her.
Issue/s: WON Ampong had been dismissed from her employment as Court Interpreter III of the RTC. (YES)
Ratio: YES - Ampong had been dismissed from her employment as Court Interpreter III.
In August 26, 2008, the SC had already held Ampong administratively liable for dishonesty in impersonating
and taking the November 1991 Civil Service Eligibility Examination for Teachers on behalf of Decir.
In that decision, the SC has defined dishonesty as the “disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack
of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud,
deceive or betray.” SC found Ampong’s dishonest act as a civil servant renders her unfit to be a judicial employee.
Ampong should not have been appointed as a judicial employee had this Court been made aware of the cheating that she
committed in the civil service examinations. Ampong’s present status as a judicial employee is not a hindrance to her
getting the penalty she deserves.
Re: CSC’s jurisdiction over administrative complaint against court employees
The CSC has administrative jurisdiction over the civil service.
This authority grants to the CSC the right to take cognizance of any irregularity or anomaly connected with the
examinations.
However, the Constitution provides that the Supreme Court is given exclusive administrative supervision over
all courts and judicial personnel. By virtue of this power, it is only the Supreme Court that can oversee the
judges’ and court personnel’s compliance with all laws, rules and regulations. It may take the proper
administrative action against them if they commit any violation.
No other branch of government may intrude into this power, without running afoul of the doctrine of separation
of powers.
o In this case, a violation of the Civil Service Law was committed by a judicial employee, although
petitioner committed the offense before her appointment to the judicial branch.
o At the time of commission, petitioner was a public school teacher under the administrative supervision
of the DECS and, in taking the civil service examinations, under the CSC.
o The fact that she committed the dishonest act before she joined the RTC does not take her case out of
the administrative reach of the Supreme Court.
Therefore, administrative jurisdiction over a court employee belongs to the Supreme Court, regardless of
whether the offense was committed before or after employment in the judiciary.
Re: Immutability of judgment
Pursuant to the doctrine of immutability of judgment, which states that “a decision that has acquired finality
becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is
meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law,” Ampong could no longer seek the August 26, 2008
Decision’s modification and reversal.
o Consequently, the penalty of dismissal from service on account of Ampong’s Dishonesty should be
enforced in its full course.
Re: Penalty of dismissal [RELEVANT]
In line with Section 58(a) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (URACCS), the penalty
of dismissal carries with it the following administrative disabilities:
1) cancellation of civil service eligibility;
2) forfeiture of retirement benefits; and
3) perpetual disqualification from reemployment in any government agency or instrumentality, including any
government-owned and controlled corporation or government financial institution.
o Ampong should be made to similarly suffer the same.
o However, despite Ampong’s dismissal on the ground of dishonesty, she should be entitled to receive
her accrued leave credits, if any, pursuant to aforementioned provision of the URACCS, which does
not include the forfeiture of the same.
It is a standing rule that despite their dismissal from the service, government employees are entitled to the
leave credits that they have earned during the period of their employment. As a matter of fairness and law,
they may not be deprived of such remuneration, which they have earned prior to their dismissal.
Wherefore, the Court SUSTAINS the dismissal of respondent Sarah P. Ampong, Court Interpreter III of the Regional Trial
Court of Alabel, Sarangani Province, Branch 38, on the ground of Dishonesty. Accordingly, her retirement and other
benefits are forfeited except accrued leave credits, and she is perpetually disqualified from reemployment in any
government agency or instrumentality, including any government-owned and controlled corporation or government
financial institution, effective immediately.
