Unsatisfactory Performance: When Two Consecutive Bad Ratings Justify Dropping from the Rolls

The Supreme Court has long held that public office is a public trust. But what happens when a government employee consistently fails to meet performance standards? In a 2013 resolution, the Court clarified the rules on dropping an employee from the rolls for unsatisfactory performance—a process that allows removal without the full administrative disciplinary proceedings.

The case involved Joylyn R. Dupaya, a Court Stenographer III at the Regional Trial Court, Branch 10, in Aparri, Cagayan. Her presiding judge reported that she received "unsatisfactory" performance ratings for two consecutive semesters: January to June 2011 and July to December 2011.

The Facts

Judge Pablo M. Agustin, Dupaya's presiding judge, issued a memorandum dated May 8, 2012, directing her to explain her continuous absences despite repeated verbal and written warnings. The judge also noted her failure to transcribe stenographic notes in numerous instances, which caused delays in the preparation of court decisions.

Despite receiving a poor rating for the first semester, Dupaya showed no initiative to improve. She failed to submit a written explanation and did not demonstrate any improvement in the following semester. Judge Agustin then recommended to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) that Dupaya be dropped from the rolls.

The Issue

The central question was whether Dupaya could be dropped from the rolls based on two consecutive unsatisfactory performance ratings, and whether the procedural requirements had been satisfied.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court agreed with the OCA's recommendation and ordered Dupaya dropped from the rolls, with her position declared vacant.

The Court anchored its ruling on Section 2, Rule XII of the Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Other Personnel Actions (Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 40-98). This rule provides that an employee who receives two consecutive unsatisfactory ratings may be dropped from the rolls after due notice.

The rule requires that the employee be informed in writing of unsatisfactory performance for a semester and be warned that another unsatisfactory rating will warrant separation. This notice must be given within 30 days from the end of the semester and must contain enough information for the employee to prepare an explanation.

In this case, the Court found proper compliance. The May 8, 2012 memorandum contained sufficient warning that Dupaya's frequent absences and poor performance would warrant an unsatisfactory rating. She failed to respond or improve.

A Pattern of Misconduct

The Court also noted Dupaya's history of administrative infractions. In 2007, she was directed to explain her failure to transcribe stenographic notes in a criminal case within the prescribed period. She was admonished in 2008 and reprimanded in 2010 for violating Administrative Circular No. 2-99 on strict observance of working hours and for failing to comply with sick leave rules.

This history underscored a persistent pattern of inefficiency, not an isolated lapse.

The Principle of Public Accountability

The Court reiterated a fundamental principle: public accountability includes discharging one's duties with utmost responsibility, integrity, competence, loyalty, and efficiency. Incompetence and inefficiency have no place in public service, especially in the dispensation of justice.

The Court emphasized that dropping from the rolls is distinct from dismissal as a disciplinary penalty. Dupaya remained qualified to receive benefits under existing laws and could still be reemployed in government.

Practical Takeaways

• Two consecutive unsatisfactory performance ratings can justify removal from government service, provided the employee receives proper written notice and warning.
• The notice must be given within 30 days after the semester ends and must clearly inform the employee of the poor rating and the consequence of a repeat.
• Employees are expected to respond to such notices and take concrete steps to improve; silence or inaction can lead to separation.
• Dropping from the rolls is not a disciplinary penalty—the employee retains eligibility for benefits and future government employment.
• Court personnel, in particular, face high standards because delays in their work directly affect the administration of justice.

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