Unexcused Absence When Neglecting Duty Leads to Removal From Public Service

The Supreme Court has long held that public office is a public trust, and those who abandon their posts without leave undermine the efficiency of government service. In a 2019 resolution, the Court dropped a court sheriff from the rolls for being absent without official leave (AWOL) for more than thirty working days, reaffirming the rules on unexcused absences and their consequences for government employees.

The Case of the Absent Sheriff

Laydabell G. Pijana was a Sheriff IV at the Regional Trial Court of Tagaytay City, Cavite, Branch 18. Records from the Employees' Leave Division of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) showed that she had not submitted her Daily Time Record since March 1, 2018, and had not filed any application for leave. She was therefore considered on AWOL from that date.

The OCA found that Pijana was still in the plantilla of court personnel, meaning she was technically in active service, but she was no longer in the payroll. She had no pending application for retirement, was not an accountable officer, and notably, nine administrative cases were pending against her. Her salaries and benefits had already been withheld pursuant to a memorandum dated May 2, 2016.

The Issue

The sole question was whether Pijana should be dropped from the rolls for her prolonged unauthorized absence, and what the effect of such separation would be on her benefits and future employment in government.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court adopted the OCA's recommendation and dropped Pijana from the rolls effective March 1, 2018, declaring her position vacant. The Court anchored its ruling on the provisions of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (2017 RACCS), which authorize the dropping from the rolls of employees who are absent without approved leave for an extended period.

Under these rules, an official or employee who is continuously absent without official leave for at least thirty working days may be dropped from the rolls without prior notice, and the separation takes effect immediately. The employee retains the right to appeal the separation within fifteen days from receipt of the notice, which must be sent to his or her last known address.

The Court also cited the Omnibus Rules on Leave, as amended, which similarly state that an employee continuously absent without approved leave for at least thirty working days shall be considered on AWOL and shall be separated from the service or dropped from the rolls without prior notice.

Why the Court Acted

The Court emphasized that prolonged unauthorized absence causes inefficiency in the public service. A court employee's continued absence without leave disrupts the normal functions of the court and contravenes the duty of a public servant to serve with the utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency. Court personnel, in particular, carry the heavy burden of upholding public accountability and maintaining the people's faith in the judiciary.

By failing to report for work without filing any leave application, Pijana grossly disregarded and neglected the duties of her office, failing to adhere to the high standards of public accountability imposed on all government servants.

A Non-Disciplinary Separation

The Court was careful to stress that dropping from the rolls is non-disciplinary in nature. This means that Pijana's separation did not result in the forfeiture of any benefits that had accrued in her favor, nor did it disqualify her from reemployment in the government. The 2017 RACCS expressly provides that this mode of separation shall not result in forfeiture of benefits or disqualification from reemployment.

However, the Court noted that this was without prejudice to the outcome of the nine administrative cases pending against her, which could still result in disciplinary action.

Practical Takeaways

• Thirty working days is the threshold. A government employee who is absent without approved leave for at least thirty working days may be dropped from the rolls without prior notice, and the separation takes effect immediately.
• No notice is required before dropping. The rules dispense with prior notice for AWOL cases, but the employee must be sent a notice of separation at his or her last known address, and has fifteen days from receipt to appeal.
• Dropping from the rolls is not a penalty. It is a non-disciplinary mode of separation, so it does not automatically forfeit accrued benefits or bar future reemployment in government.
• Pending administrative cases remain separate. Being dropped from the rolls does not extinguish other administrative liabilities; separate cases proceed independently.
• Public service demands presence. Continued absence without leave disrupts court operations and violates the duty of public servants to serve with responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency.

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