G.R. No. A.M. No. P-03-1716; June 9, 2005
Atty. Corazon C. Pagulayan-Torres, Assistant Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Bacolod City, complainant, vs. Carlota V. Gomez, Clerk IV, Regional Trial Court, Bacolod City, respondent.

FACTS

This administrative case originated from a sworn complaint filed by Assistant Clerk of Court Corazon C. Pagulayan-Torres against Carlota V. Gomez, Clerk IV of the same court. The complaint alleged that on multiple occasions in June and August 2000, respondent Gomez, without any authority, personally received and collected publication fees from litigants amounting to thousands of pesos. She issued acknowledgment receipts but failed to remit the collected funds to the designated cash clerk. When confronted, she offered no valid explanation. Furthermore, despite being reprimanded and reassigned to purely clerical duties, she repeated the unauthorized collection. The complaint also charged her with habitual absenteeism and tardiness.
Despite several directives and extensions granted by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), respondent Gomez failed to file her comment or explanation on the formal charges against her. In a separate resolution dated November 22, 2000, she had already been dropped from the rolls effective February 1, 2000, due to continued absence without approved leave.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Carlota V. Gomez is administratively liable for the charges of dishonesty and habitual absenteeism.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty as charged. The Court ruled that her failure to file a comment despite ample opportunity constituted a waiver of her right to contest the allegations, allowing the Court to decide based on the available evidence. The acts of repeatedly collecting court funds without authority and failing to remit them constitute dishonesty and serious misconduct. Such actions erode public trust in the judiciary and cannot be tolerated. Coupled with her habitual absenteeism, which had already led to her being dropped from the service, these offenses warrant the supreme penalty of dismissal.
The Court emphasized that being “dropped from the rolls” is a non-disciplinary separation and does not carry the accessory penalties of a disciplinary dismissal. Therefore, to impose the appropriate consequences for her grave offenses, the Court found it necessary to adjudicate her administrative liability. Consequently, the Court imposed upon her the accessory penalties attendant to dismissal: forfeiture of all retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits) and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in any government agency or instrumentality. This decision is without prejudice to any criminal or civil liability she may have incurred. The ruling underscores that all court personnel must adhere to the highest standards of integrity and accountability.