G.R. No. 177244 - Largo vs. Court of Appeals

Petitioner: Teodulo V. Largo, Section Chief, Administrative/General Services of the National Power Corporation (NPC) at the Angat River Hydroelectric Power Plant in Norzagaray, Bulacan.
Administrative charges were filed against petitioner for alleged grave misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, oppression, and unlawful exercise of power under NPC Circular No. 97-66, which restricts personnel from carrying firearms within NPC premises.
The complaint was initiated by Alan A. Olandesca, former property officer of NPC at ARHEP.

On October 30, 1997, during a birthday party attended by both petitioner and Olandesca, petitioner claimed that Olandesca humiliated him by throwing a piece of paper and shouting "aIkaw ang magnanakaw."
Later that same day, around 5:05 in the afternoon, petitioner went to Olandesca’s quarters at ARHEP, shouted invectives, and threatened to kill him.
Petitioner then proceeded to the "dirty kitchen" at the back of the quarters where he encountered Olandesca’s wife.
An unexpected disturbance occurred when a dog barked, prompting petitioner to claim he was frightened; he subsequently fired two shots—one hitting the flooring and the other striking a water hose.
Petitioner left the compound upon failing to locate Olandesca.

Prior to the investigation and subsequent disciplinary proceedings, petitioner had already retired from service effective January 1, 1998 under the NPC SDP Retirement Plan.
On December 17, 1997, administrative charges were brought against petitioner based on the incident.
The NPC investigation and inquiry led to a recommended finding of simple misconduct with a penalty of suspension ranging from one month and one day to two months.
In subsequent Memoranda:

On January 3, 2001, CEO Federico Puno found petitioner guilty of grave misconduct and imposed dismissal from service.
On reconsideration, NPC President Jesus N. Alcordo reduced the penalty to a one-year suspension considering mitigating factors such as petitioner’s first offense, absence of physical harm, lengthy service record, and the alleged provocation by Olandesca.
Given petitioner’s retirement, the execution of the penalty was directed by deducting an amount equivalent to one year’s suspension without pay from his retirement benefits.

On July 4, 2003, the CSC affirmed the NPC’s earlier finding of grave misconduct but modified the penalty from one-year suspension to dismissal from service, including ancillary consequences such as cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification from government re-employment.
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by the CSC in resolution dated June 21, 2004.
Petitioner then appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reaffirmed the CSC’s resolutions in its decision denying the petition.

Claimed that his retirement rendered the administrative case academic.
Asserted that even if found guilty, the offense should be classified as simple misconduct with a lighter penalty because the acts alleged were committed in his private capacity and not as an execution of official duties.

Whether petitioner’s retirement rendered moot the administrative proceedings against him.
Whether petitioner was validly dismissed for serious misconduct when the acts charged were committed in his private capacity.

Whether the retirement of petitioner, which occurred after the filing of the administrative complaint but prior to the conclusion of the case, rendered the case academic and moot.
Whether the disciplinary authorities retained jurisdiction over petitioner’s case despite his retirement from service.

Whether the actions committed by petitioner—namely trespassing into Olandesca’s quarters, issuing death threats, and discharging a firearm—constitute grave misconduct or fall within the ambit of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
Whether the dismissal imposed for grave misconduct was a valid disciplinary sanction considering that the acts were not directly related to the performance of official duties.
Whether petitioner’s defense of acting in a private capacity and his subsequent plea for a lighter penalty (simple misconduct) is legally tenable.