AWOL in the Judiciary: Dropping From the Rolls and Public Accountability

The Supreme Court recently addressed the consequences of absence without official leave (AWOL) for employees of the Judiciary. In an administrative matter involving a Legal Researcher who stopped reporting for work, the Court clarified the distinction between disciplinary proceedings and the non-disciplinary process of dropping an employee from the rolls. The ruling reinforces the high standard of public accountability expected of all government personnel, including those working in the courts.

The Case of the Absent Legal Researcher

The case began when a Presiding Judge filed an administrative complaint against a Legal Researcher II for alleged usurpation of authority. The Court dismissed that complaint for lack of merit. Following the dismissal, the employee requested permission to return to work and asked for the processing of his back salaries and benefits.

The Court discovered, however, that the employee had not reported for work since August 2018. Although his sick leave application for July 2018 had been approved by the Court's Medical Services, he simply did not return after that period. His request letters came only in September and November 2020, more than two years after his last day of work.

The Issue

The central question was whether the employee could be allowed to return to work despite his prolonged unauthorized absences, or whether he should be dropped from the rolls for going on AWOL.

The Ruling: Dropped From the Rolls

The Court agreed with the Judicial Integrity Board's recommendation to drop the employee from the rolls effective August 1, 2018. The Court emphasized that the process of dropping an employee from the rolls for AWOL is not disciplinary in nature. It is a separate administrative remedy governed by the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in Civil Service (2017 RACCS), not by Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, which governs disciplinary cases in the Judiciary.

The Court cited Section 107(a)(1) of the 2017 RACCS, which states that an official or employee who is continuously absent without official leave for at least thirty (30) working days may be dropped from the rolls without prior notice, effective immediately. The employee in this case had been absent for far longer than thirty days.

The Court also cited Section 110 of the same rules, which provides that dropping from the rolls is non-disciplinary and shall not result in the forfeiture of any benefit or disqualification from reemployment in the government. This means the employee remained entitled to benefits up to July 31, 2018, and could still seek government employment in the future.

Why the Employee's Request Was Denied

The Court noted that during the pendency of the administrative complaint, the employee was never prevented or disallowed from reporting to work. His decision to go on AWOL for a long period not only violated the high standards of public accountability required of government servants but also disrupted the functions and operations of his office. The Court therefore denied his request to return to work.

Practical Takeaways

• AWOL is distinct from habitual absenteeism. Under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, habitual absenteeism is a less serious disciplinary charge. AWOL, on the other hand, is addressed through the non-disciplinary process of dropping from the rolls under the 2017 RACCS.

• Thirty working days is the threshold. A government employee who is continuously absent without approved leave for at least thirty working days may be dropped from the rolls without prior notice.

• Dropping from the rolls is not a penalty. The employee retains the right to receive benefits earned before the AWOL period and is not disqualified from future government employment.

• Approval of leave must be secured. Even if a medical condition exists, an employee must properly apply for and obtain approval of leave. Failure to do so may result in being dropped from the rolls.

• Public accountability applies to all. Employees of the Judiciary, like all government personnel, are expected to adhere to strict standards of conduct, including reporting for work as required.

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