Chan vs.

Sandiganbayan Facts: Chan seeks a reversal of the Sandiganbayan decision finding her guilty of Malversation of Public Funds. She was hired as Accounting Clerk II and discharged the function of a Collection Officer. Chan, while on leave, was officially substituted by Bas. When she returned, upon conduct of routine audit examination, the auditor found a shortage in petitioners cash accountability. The COA Region VII filed a complaint against petitioner for Malversation of Public Funds in the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman. After hearing, petitioner was convicted before the RTC. On appeal, the Sandiganbayan, affirmed her conviction. Issue: Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting Chan for the unremitted collections of another accountable officer designated by her superior. Held: No. Chan could still be held liable for the amount unremitted by Bas since it was shown that the latter was under her supervision. Chan could have shown that she was not remiss in her supervision of Bas but she failed to do so. Chan was not merely lax in supervising Bas but she also actively assisted her in concealing her shortages. Igoy vs. Soriano Facts: Igoy is one of the petitioners in a civil case. While the case was pending before the CA, he tried to look for a person in the SC who may assist him in obtaining justice. A friend introduced him to a certain Justice of the SC, which was Atty. Soriano. The said Justice asked for and received from him various sums. They lost in the CA so Soriano prepared the petition for review to be filed with the SC. Thereafter, Soriano denied that money was given to him, saying that it was only a token. Soon, Soriano resigned from his office. Issue: Whether Soriano committed acts which will warrant his disbarment? Held: Yes. The claim of Atty. Soriano that the amount was given gratuitously would not excuse him from any liability. It is admitted that respondent offered to resign, however, resignation should not be used as an easy way to escape administrative liability by a court personnel facing administrative sanction. What makes his infraction worse is the fact that he is not a mere court employee, but a senior attorney employed in the Highest Court of the Land. He is thus disbarred with forfeiture of all his retirement benefits. Padilla vs. CSC Facts: Padilla was promoted as Labor Development Assistant but her appointment was disapproved because she failed to meet the eligibility requirement. She resigned in 1985, and took the career service examination, passed and re-applied. She was given casual positions, and then in 1990 was no longer given any. She refused a permanent position of Clerk II because she wanted a higher position like the one she lost. CSC dismissed her claim. CA affirmed. Issue: Whether DOLE was obliged to give her a permanent position, upon Padillas attainment of the required civil service eligibility.

Held: Voluntary resignation results in the abdication of all present and future rights accorded to an employee and in the severance of all work-related ties between the employer and the employee. When she returned to work for DOLE, it was not a continuation of her previous service, but the start of a new work slate.