AWOL and Due Process: Can an Employee Dropped From the Rolls Still Face Administrative Cases?

The Supreme Court recently ruled on an important question for employees in public service: what happens to a pending administrative case when an employee is dropped from the rolls for being absent without leave (AWOL)? In Office of the Court Administrator v. Denso (A.M. No. P-25-292, January 28, 2026), the Court held that a supervening separation from service—even one caused by AWOL—does not automatically terminate ongoing disciplinary proceedings.

The case also serves as a stern reminder that public office is a public trust, and court personnel who mishandle judiciary funds face severe consequences, including forfeiture of benefits and disqualification from public office.

The Facts of the Case

Emerose F. Denso was the Clerk of Court II at the Municipal Trial Court in Bulan, Sorsogon. In November 2019, she was directed to explain why her salaries should not be withheld for failing to submit required financial reports on court collections, deposits, and withdrawals. She did not comply.

In July 2022, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended that her salaries be withheld and that she be relieved as clerk of court. A financial audit conducted in September 2022 revealed cash shortages totaling PHP 1,516,880.72 across several judiciary funds, including the Fiduciary Fund, Judiciary Development Fund, and General Fund.

The audit team found that Denso's financial records were disorganized, her cash books were not updated, and her monthly reports were incomplete. She was also uncooperative, presenting documents in a piecemeal manner. Despite multiple demands, she failed to explain the shortages or restitute the missing funds.

Meanwhile, Denso was declared separated from the service effective April 3, 2023, after being found continuously absent without leave for more than 30 working days.

The Issue: Does AWOL Separation End the Case?

The central question was whether the Court could still impose administrative penalties on Denso even though she had already been dropped from the rolls.

The Court answered yes. Under the 2025 Code of Conduct and Accountability for Court Officials and Personnel (CCACOP), once disciplinary proceedings have been instituted, a respondent's supervening resignation, retirement, or separation from service does not preclude the continuation of the proceedings.

The Court explained that Denso's dropping from the rolls had no effect on the pending administrative case against her. The administrative complaint had already been initiated before her separation, and the Court retained jurisdiction over it.

The Ruling: Guilty of Gross Misconduct, Dishonesty, and Neglect

The Court found Denso liable for:

• Gross misconduct – for violating the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel
• Serious dishonesty – for misappropriating court funds
• Gross neglect of duty – for failing to remit collections and submit required reports
• Violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars

The Court emphasized that clerks of court are custodians of court funds and must exercise the utmost fiduciary responsibility. The failure to remit funds upon demand without justifiable reason gives rise to the presumption that the funds were misappropriated for personal use.

Because Denso was already separated from service, the Court could not impose dismissal. Instead, it ordered:

1. Forfeiture of all benefits except accrued leave credits
2. Disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations
3. A fine of PHP 102,000.00
4. Restitution of the PHP 1,516,880.72 shortage within three months

Practical Takeaways

• AWOL does not shield an employee from liability. Being dropped from the rolls for continuous absence without leave does not erase prior misconduct. Pending administrative cases continue even after separation from service.
• Separation changes the penalty, not the liability. If dismissal can no longer be imposed because the employee has already left, the court may impose forfeiture of benefits, disqualification from public office, and fines in lieu of dismissal.
• Public office is a public trust. Court personnel, especially clerks of court, are held to the highest standards of integrity. Mishandling court funds—even a single peso—can result in grave administrative consequences.
• Ignoring directives worsens the case. Denso's repeated failure to respond to demands for explanation and to submit required reports weighed heavily against her. Cooperation and transparency are critical in administrative proceedings.
• Personal problems are not a valid excuse. While personal circumstances may be considered, they do not justify dereliction of duty, especially when public funds are involved.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.