G.R. No.: A.M. No. P-24-182 (Formerly JIB FPI No. 21-031-P)
Date: August 12, 2025

Case Parties/Title: Office of the Court Administrator, Complainant, vs. Benjie V. Ore, Process Server, Office of the Clerk of Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Pasay City, Respondent.

FACTS

The case originated from an Indorsement dated February 28, 2022, directing respondent Benjie V. Ore, a former process server, to explain why he should not be administratively charged. This was due to his conviction by Branch 45 of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Pasay City in Criminal Case Nos. M-PSY-16-27580-CR and M-PSY-16-27581-CR for the crime of failure of accountable officer to render accounts under Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code. The Informations, filed on April 4, 2016, alleged that Ore received two checks as cash advances for travel expenses (PHP 17,896.00 for a Palawan trip and PHP 15,000 for a Davao trip) and failed to liquidate them within 30 days after his return as required by COA Circular No. 97-00. The MeTC found him guilty on December 17, 2018, and imposed a penalty of imprisonment. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) received a copy of this conviction on March 13, 2019. Ore was suspended pending the criminal cases and eventually resigned from service on September 2, 2019. He was also charged with malversation but was acquitted for lack of proof of misappropriation. The Office of the Executive Director initially recommended finding him guilty of a crime involving moral turpitude and dismissal. The Judicial Integrity Board (JIB), in its Report, modified this, finding the act did not constitute moral turpitude but instead gross neglect of duty, and recommended forfeiture of benefits (excluding accrued leave credits) and disqualification from public office.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Benjie V. Ore is administratively liable for his failure to liquidate the cash advances, and if so, what is the proper penalty considering his prior resignation from service.

RULING

The Court adopted the findings and recommendations of the JIB. The Court held that Ore is liable for Gross Neglect of Duty. The Court ruled that his resignation on September 2, 2019, did not oust it of jurisdiction, as disciplinary proceedings were deemed instituted when the OCA was notified of his criminal conviction on March 13, 2019, prior to his resignation, in accordance with Section 2(2), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.
The Court found that Ore’s failure to liquidate the cash advances, which were public funds, constituted a flagrant and culpable refusal to perform his duty. This violated Canons I (Section 5) and IV (Section 1) of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel (A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC), which require the judicious use of resources and the diligent performance of official duties. The act was characterized not by simple carelessness but by a willful and intentional omission, meeting the standard for gross neglect.
As to the penalty, while gross neglect of duty is a serious charge normally punishable by dismissal, this penalty could no longer be imposed due to Ore’s supervening resignation. Applying Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, the Court imposed the accessory penalties. Consequently, the Court ORDERED the FORFEITURE of all benefits, except accrued leave credits, and PERPETUAL DISQUALIFICATION from re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations. The decision is immediately effective upon Ore’s receipt.