A.M. No. P-24-182 [Formerly JIB FPI No. 21-031-P] - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. BENJIE V. ORE, PROCESS SERVER, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, PASAY CITY.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

ACCORDINGLY , we respectfully RECOMMEND to the Honorable Supreme Court that: 1) The Complaint against Benjie V. Ore, Process Server, Office of the Clerk of Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Pasay City, be RE­DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter; and 2) Respondent be found GUILTY of Gross Neglect of Duty and be penalized with forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Supreme Court may determine and be DISQUALIFIED from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or -controlled corporations. Provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued credits. [22] (Emphasis in the original) The JIB found that Ore's act of failing to render accounts could not be categorized as a crime involving moral turpitude, because the said act, although punishable by law, is not inherently vile, depraved, debased, despicable, or immoral in itself. [23] At best, Ore's failure to liquidate his cash advances constitutes gross neglect of duty, given that he intentionally breached or neglected his obligation to liquidate despite knowing that he was duty-bound to do so. [24] While gross neglect of duty is a serious charge punishable by dismissal, that penalty, however, can no longer be imposed on account of Ore's resignation on September 2, 2019. [25] Thus, the JIB recommended that Ore's benefits be forfeited and that he be disqualified from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-­owned or controlled corporations. However, the forfeiture of benefits shall not include his accrued leave credits. The Court's Ruling The Court adopts the findings and recommendations of the JIB, and holds respondent liable for gross neglect of duty in the performance or nonperformance of official functions. At the outset, respondent is reminded that his resignation on September 2, 2019 does not oust the Court of its jurisdiction over the instant case, given that disciplinary proceedings were instituted before his resignation, as early as March 13, 2019 when the OCA was notified of his criminal conviction. Following Section 2(2) of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended, once disciplinary proceedings are instituted, the respondent's supervening separation from service shall not preclude or affect the continuation of the same. [26] As for his liability for gross neglect of duty, it was already established in Criminal Case Nos. M-PSY-16-27580-CR and M-PSY-16-27581-CR that respondent failed to liquidate the amounts of PHP 17,896.00 and PHP 15,000.00, representing cash advances he received for travel expenses, within the deadline provided under COA Circular No. 97-00, in violation of his duty as process server of the Office of the Clerk of Court, MeTC of Pasay City. The cash advances received by respondent formed part of the court's funds. By failing to submit the required liquidation, respondent was remiss in his duty to observe the prescribed guidelines or procedures in the use of funds