Unexcused Absence When Neglect of Duty Leads to Removal From Public Service

The Supreme Court has long held that public office is a public trust, and those who hold it must answer for their conduct with accountability and diligence. When a government employee simply stops reporting for work without approved leave, the consequences can be severe—including removal from the service. A 2019 resolution of the Court’s Second Division illustrates exactly how this works, and what protections remain for the errant employee.

The Case of the Absent Process Server

The case involved Steveril J. Jabonete, Jr., a Junior Process Server at the Municipal Trial Court of Pontevedra, Negros Occidental. His approved vacation and sick leave ran until June 3, 2011. After that date, he never returned to work. He did not submit his Daily Time Records (DTRs) starting June 2011, nor did he file any additional leave applications. In effect, he was absent without official leave (AWOL) beginning June 6, 2011.

The Employees' Leave Division of the Office of the Court Administrator sent him a letter in February 2012, directing him to submit his DTRs or face withholding of his salaries. A second letter, dated March 21, 2012, was coursed through the court’s Acting Presiding Judge, reiterating the directive and warning that continued non-compliance could lead to a recommendation that his name be dropped from the rolls.

The judge confirmed receiving the letter and personally handing it to Jabonete, who signed as “received” on May 10, 2012. Despite this, Jabonete never complied. His salaries and benefits were withheld, and the Office of the Court Administrator eventually recommended that his name be dropped from the rolls effective June 6, 2011.

The Governing Rule: Dropping from the Rolls

The Supreme Court applied Section 93(a), Rule 19 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS). This provision states that an officer or employee who is continuously absent without official leave for at least thirty (30) working days shall be separated from the service or dropped from the rolls without prior notice.

The separation takes effect immediately, but the employee must be informed of the separation not later than five days from its effectivity. The notice is sent to the address appearing on the employee’s 201 file or to the last known address.

In this case, Jabonete had been absent since June 6, 2011—far exceeding the 30-working-day threshold. The Court found no reason to deviate from the rule and ordered his name dropped from the rolls.

Why the Court Emphasized Neglect of Duty

The Court stressed that court personnel carry the heavy responsibility of upholding public accountability and maintaining the people’s faith in the judiciary. By failing to report for work for years, Jabonete grossly disregarded and neglected the duties of his office. He failed to adhere to the high standards of public accountability imposed on all those in government service.

This is not merely a technical violation. The Court has consistently held that absenteeism and dereliction of duty erode public confidence in the government and the judiciary. A public servant who abandons his post without leave betrays that trust.

A Non-Disciplinary Separation

Despite the severity of the act, the Court clarified an important distinction: dropping from the rolls is non-disciplinary in nature. Under Section 96, Rule 19 of the RRACCS, this mode of separation does not result in the forfeiture of any benefit the employee may be entitled to under existing laws. Neither does it disqualify the employee from reemployment in the government.

In practical terms, Jabonete was removed from his position and his post declared vacant, but he remained qualified to receive whatever benefits he had earned and could still apply for government work in the future. This is different from a dismissal for a grave offense, which carries heavier consequences.

Practical Takeaways

• Thirty working days of continuous AWOL is the threshold. A government employee who is absent without approved leave for at least 30 working days may be dropped from the rolls without prior notice.
• Notice is sent after the fact. The employee does not need to be warned beforehand, but must be informed of the separation within five days, sent to the address in the 201 file or the last known address.
• Ignoring directives makes things worse. In this case, the employee was given multiple opportunities to submit his DTRs and return to work. His continued silence sealed his fate.
• Dropping from the rolls is not a penalty. It is an administrative measure to clean the roster of inactive personnel. The separated employee keeps earned benefits and may seek reemployment in government.
• The same rule applies broadly. While this case involved a court employee, the same principles govern civil service employees generally under the RRACCS and its successor rules.

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