G.R. No. P-10-2785. September 21, 2010
LOURDES S. ESCALONA, Complainant, vs. CONSOLACION S. PADILLO, Court Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 260, Parañaque City, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Lourdes Escalona charged respondent Consolacion Padillo, a Court Stenographer III, with Grave Misconduct. Escalona alleged that Padillo solicited and received ₱20,000 from her, purportedly to facilitate the filing of a criminal case and ensure the issuance of a warrant of arrest against a certain individual. Padillo issued a receipt for the amount. Subsequent verification revealed no case was ever filed. Escalona later executed an Affidavit of Desistance, stating Padillo had refunded the money and requesting withdrawal of the complaint. Despite receiving multiple directives from the Court, Padillo failed to file her comment. Records also indicated she had resigned from her position shortly after the complaint was filed.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Consolacion Padillo is administratively liable for Grave Misconduct despite her resignation, the complainant’s desistance, and the alleged restitution of the solicited money.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is guilty of Grave Misconduct. The Court affirmed the findings and recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator. The act of soliciting money from a party seeking to file a case, under the pretense of influencing court processes, constitutes a severe violation of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, which explicitly prohibits soliciting or accepting any benefit that could influence official actions. The signed receipt presented by the complainant provided concrete evidence of the transaction.
The respondent’s resignation did not divest the Court of its disciplinary jurisdiction or render the case moot. Resignation is not a means to evade administrative liability. Furthermore, the complainant’s affidavit of desistance and the alleged refund of the money do not absolve the respondent. Administrative cases concern the breach of public duty and the standards of the judiciary, not merely the private interest of the complainant. The Court’s disciplinary power is exercised in the public interest to preserve the integrity of judicial administration and cannot be dependent on a complainant’s change of heart.
Consequently, the Court imposed the accessory penalties attendant to dismissal. Since the respondent had already resigned, the penalty of dismissal could no longer be imposed. However, she was adjudged guilty of Grave Misconduct. All her retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, were ordered forfeited. Her civil service eligibility was cancelled, and she was perpetually disqualified from reemployment in any government branch, agency, or instrumentality, including government-owned and controlled corporations.