Dismissal for Prolonged AWOL Upholds Public Service Accountability

The Supreme Court has long held that public office is a public trust. In a 2007 resolution, the Court reaffirmed this principle by ordering the dismissal of a court employee who went on absence without official leave (AWOL) for an extended period. The case of Re: Absence Without Official Leave (AWOL) of Ms. Fernandita B. Borja (A.M. No. 06-1-10-MCTC, April 13, 2007) underscores the strict standard of accountability imposed on everyone in government service, especially those working in the judiciary.

The Facts of the Case

Ms. Fernandita B. Borja was a Clerk II in Branch 15 of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Bilar, Bohol. In August 2004, she applied for a three-month vacation leave to travel abroad. However, she left the country without waiting for approval of her authority to travel.

She never returned to work. The Clerk of Court reported that Borja had not submitted daily time records since August 2004 and had not filed any application for leave during that period. Her salary checks were returned unclaimed, and she was eventually excluded from the payroll in July 2005. Despite several directives from the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), she still failed to report back to work.

The Issue

The central question was whether Borja should be separated from service for her prolonged unauthorized absence, and whether her position should be declared vacant.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court agreed with the OCA's recommendation to drop Borja from the rolls and declare her position vacant.

The Court cited Rule XVI, Section 63 of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations, as amended by Circular No. 14, s. 1999, which provides that an official or employee who is continuously absent without approved leave for at least thirty (30) calendar days shall be considered on AWOL and shall be separated from the service or dropped from the rolls without prior notice. The employee must be informed of the separation within five days from its effectivity.

Since Borja had been absent since August 2004, she clearly fell within this rule.

Why the Court Took a Strict Stance

The Court emphasized that a court employee's prolonged absence disrupts the normal functions of the court and constitutes conduct prejudicial to the best interest of public service. It violates the duty of public servants to serve with responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency.

Going on AWOL, the Court said, shows gross disregard for the duties of office and manifests disrespect for superiors, colleagues, and the public. The Court stressed that all court personnel carry a heavy burden of responsibility, and any act that diminishes public faith in the judiciary cannot be tolerated.

The ruling also noted a practical consequence: a court employee's prolonged unauthorized absence impedes the dispensation of justice, which is the essential function of the courts. As the Court put it, "One who delays justice denies justice."

Practical Takeaways

• Thirty days is the threshold. Under Civil Service rules, an employee who is absent without approved leave for at least 30 calendar days may be dropped from the rolls without prior notice.
• Approval of leave must come first. Leaving the country or going on extended absence before leave is approved exposes an employee to AWOL status.
• Public service demands strict accountability. Court employees, in particular, are held to the highest standards because their work directly affects the administration of justice.
• Dropping from the rolls is immediate and final. The employee is separated from service, and the position may be declared vacant.
• Notification follows separation. The employee is informed of the separation within five days, sent to the address on file.

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