Dropped From the Rolls: AWOL Court Employee and Public Service Integrity

The Supreme Court has once again underscored that working in the judiciary is no ordinary job. In an administrative resolution dated September 5, 2007, the Court dropped Robert L. Borcillo, a utility worker I at the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City, Branch 28, from the rolls for being absent without official leave (AWOL) since November 2006. The case serves as a firm reminder that court personnel carry a heavy burden of responsibility, and that habitual absenteeism erodes public confidence in the justice system.

The Facts of the Case

Borcillo had a history of habitual absenteeism. Memoranda dated May 26, June 14, September 19, and September 29, 2005, had already called his attention to the infraction. He was even suspended for ten days on October 18, 2005. Despite these penalties, he repeated the offense from October 2006 to January 2007, missing numerous workdays and failing to observe prescribed office hours on other days.

In a memorandum dated February 27, 2007, Presiding Judge Loida J. Diestro-Maputol directed Borcillo to explain his absences and his failure to submit daily time records (DTRs) for November and December 2006 and January 2007. The memorandum carried a stern warning that non-compliance would lead to a recommendation that he be dropped from the rolls.

Borcillo never responded. He neither reported for work nor applied for leave, and he stopped submitting his bundy cards and DTRs altogether. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended that he be dropped from the rolls and his position declared vacant.

The Issue

The sole question before the Court was whether Borcillo, who had been continuously absent without approved leave, should be separated from service.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court approved the OCA's recommendation and dropped Borcillo from the rolls. The Court relied on Rule XVI, Section 63 of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations, as amended by Circular No. 14, s. 1999, which states that an official or employee who is continuously absent without approved leave for at least thirty calendar days is considered on AWOL and shall be separated from service or dropped from the rolls without prior notice. The employee must, however, be informed of the separation at the address in his 201 file within five days from its effectivity.

Since Borcillo had been absent since November 2006—far beyond the thirty-day threshold—his separation was proper.

Why the Court Was Firm

The Court emphasized that a court employee who goes on AWOL for a prolonged period disrupts the normal functioning of the organization and delays its operations. Such conduct is prejudicial to the best interest of public service. It contravenes a public servant's duty to serve the public with the utmost degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency. It also manifests disrespect to superiors, colleagues, the service, and the public at large.

The Court stressed that the conduct and behavior of all court personnel are circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. It cannot countenance any act or omission on the part of those involved in the administration of justice that violates the norm of public accountability and diminishes, or tends to diminish, the faith of the people in the judiciary.

Practical Takeaways

• Thirty days is the threshold. Under civil service rules, continuous absence without approved leave for at least thirty calendar days is enough ground to be dropped from the rolls.
• Prior warnings are not required for AWOL separation. The rule allows separation without prior notice, although the employee must be informed of the separation within five days from its effectivity.
• Judiciary employees face stricter standards. Court personnel are expected to adhere to high standards of public accountability; absenteeism is treated as a grave breach of that duty.
• Ignoring official notices makes things worse. Failure to respond to a show-cause memorandum or to submit DTRs strengthens the case for separation.
• The position becomes vacant. Once dropped from the rolls, the employee's position is declared vacant and may be filled.

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