Unexcused Absence When Is Dropping From the Rolls Justified

The Supreme Court has long held that public office is a public trust. When an employee simply stops reporting for work without leave, that trust is broken. In a 2018 Resolution, the Court clarified when an unexcused absence justifies dropping an employee from the rolls — and what benefits, if any, the employee may still claim.

The Case of Ms. Nudo

Ms. Marissa M. Nudo was a Clerk III at the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 6. In April 2017, the Court was informed that she had been absent without official leave (AWOL) since March 2017. Records showed she had not submitted her Daily Time Record (DTR) since March, nor had she filed any application for leave. Her salaries and benefits were withheld.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) verified that Nudo was still in the plantilla of court personnel, had no pending retirement application, had no administrative case against her, and was not an accountable officer. The OCA recommended that her name be dropped from the rolls effective March 1, 2017, for being AWOL for more than thirty (30) working days.

The Rule on AWOL

The Court based its ruling on the Omnibus Rules on Leave, as amended by Memorandum Circular No. 13, Series of 2007. This provision states 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 the service or dropped from the rolls without prior notice.

The rule is clear: the threshold is thirty (30) working days of continuous absence without approved leave. Once that threshold is met, the employing office may drop the employee from the rolls without prior notice. This is a departure from the usual requirement of notice and hearing in administrative cases, precisely because the employee's own conduct — failing to report for work — makes notice impractical.

Why the Court Sustained the Drop

The Court agreed with the OCA's recommendation. Nudo's prolonged unauthorized absences caused inefficiency in the public service, as they disrupted the normal functions of the court. The Court emphasized that a public servant must serve with the utmost degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency. Court personnel, in particular, are held to a high standard because they uphold public accountability and maintain the people's faith in the judiciary.

By failing to report for work since March 2017, Nudo grossly disregarded and neglected the duties of her office. She failed to adhere to the high standards of public accountability imposed on all those in government service.

What the Employee Still Gets

Notably, the Court ruled that Nudo remained qualified to receive the benefits she may be entitled to under existing laws, and she could still be reemployed in the government. This means that being dropped from the rolls for AWOL is not the same as dismissal for a grave offense. The employee is not perpetually disqualified from public service; the separation is based on the fact of absence, not on a finding of misconduct.

Practical Takeaways

• Thirty working days is the magic number. An employee who is absent without approved leave for at least thirty (30) working days may be dropped from the rolls without prior notice.
• No notice is required before the drop. The rule allows separation without prior notice because the employee's continued absence makes service of notice impractical.
• Dropping from the rolls is not a penalty. It is an administrative measure to remove an employee who has effectively abandoned the post. The employee may still claim benefits and may be reemployed.
• Court personnel are held to a higher standard. The judiciary demands utmost responsibility and efficiency; prolonged absence disrupts court functions and erodes public faith in the justice system.
• Keep records. Employers should document the employee's absences, the lack of leave applications, and the withholding of salaries, as these form the basis for the administrative action.

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