AWOL in Government Service: Supreme Court Upholds Dropping Employee From Rolls

The Supreme Court has long held that public office is a public trust, and government employees who abandon their posts face serious consequences. In a 2018 Resolution, the Court affirmed the dropping from the rolls of a court sheriff who had been absent without official leave (AWOL) for years. The case serves as a clear reminder of the rules governing unauthorized absences in the Philippine civil service.

The Case of the Absent Sheriff

The case involved Lemuel H. Vendiola, a Sheriff IV at the Regional Trial Court of Biñan City, Laguna. Vendiola had been in government service since 2004, starting as a Utility Worker before being appointed Sheriff IV in 2009, and permanently in 2010.

The trouble began when Vendiola stopped submitting his Daily Time Record (DTR) in May 2012. He also failed to file any application for leave. By February 2013, the Executive Judge requested the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) to drop Vendiola from the rolls and declare his position vacant due to his unauthorized absences.

Records showed that Vendiola had not reported for work since April 2012. Additionally, his salaries and benefits had been withheld since December 2010 because he failed to submit the requirements for his initial salary upon his permanent appointment.

The Governing Rule on AWOL

The Supreme Court applied the Omnibus Rules on Leave, as amended by Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 13, Series of 2007. This issuance provides that an official or employee who is continuously absent without approved leave for at least thirty (30) working days shall be considered on AWOL and shall be separated from service or dropped from the rolls without prior notice.

The Court found that Vendiola's prolonged unauthorized absences clearly fell under this rule. His absence since April 2012 far exceeded the 30-day threshold, warranting his separation from service.

Why the Court Upheld the Dropping

The Court emphasized that Vendiola's actions caused inefficiency in the public service by disrupting the normal functions of the court. His conduct contravened the duty of a public servant to serve with the utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency.

The Court stressed that court personnel carry a heavy responsibility to uphold public accountability and maintain the people's faith in the judiciary. By failing to report for work for years, Vendiola grossly disregarded and neglected the duties of his office.

The Court's Directive

The Supreme Court ordered that Vendiola be dropped from the rolls effective May 2, 2012, and declared his position vacant. However, the Court noted two important qualifications:

1. Vendiola remained qualified to receive benefits he may be entitled to under existing laws.
2. He could still be reemployed in the government.

The dropping from the rolls was also made without prejudice to any liability that might arise upon completion of an audit of the Sheriff Trust Fund for which he was accountable.

Practical Takeaways

• 30-day rule: Government employees who are absent without approved leave for at least 30 working days may be dropped from the rolls without prior notice.
• No notice required: Unlike disciplinary cases, dropping from the rolls for AWOL does not require prior notice under the Omnibus Rules on Leave.
• Consequences: AWOL disrupts public service and violates the duty of public servants to serve with responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency.
• Not a bar to future employment: Being dropped from the rolls does not automatically disqualify an employee from future government reemployment or from receiving benefits under existing laws.
• Accountability continues: Dropping from the rolls does not erase potential liabilities, such as financial accountability for funds entrusted to the employee.

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