Dropping from the Rolls for AWOL: A Court Employee's Duty of Accountability

The Supreme Court has long held that those who work in the judiciary must adhere to the highest standards of public accountability. When a court employee abandons his post without leave, the entire judicial system suffers. In Re: Dropping from the Rolls of Mr. Victor R. Laqui, Jr. (A.M. No. 18-08-79-MeTC, October 3, 2018), the Court addressed the consequences of prolonged unauthorized absence and clarified the rules on dropping an employee from the rolls.

The Facts of the Case

Victor R. Laqui, Jr. was a Cash Clerk II at the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila. Beginning March 1, 2018, Laqui stopped reporting for work. He failed to submit his Daily Time Records (DTRs) from March 2018 onward and did not file any leave applications for his absences. In effect, he was on absence without official leave (AWOL).

The Executive Judge of the MeTC informed the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) of Laqui's situation. The OCA then withheld his salaries and benefits. Upon verification, the OCA found that Laqui had not applied for retirement, remained on the plantilla of personnel, was not an accountable officer, and had no pending administrative case against him. The OCA recommended that Laqui's name be dropped from the rolls effective March 1, 2018.

The Issue

The central question was whether Laqui, who had been continuously absent without approved leave for more than thirty working days, could be dropped from the rolls of court personnel.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court adopted the OCA's recommendation and ordered Laqui dropped from the rolls effective March 1, 2018, declaring his position vacant.

The Court applied Section 107(a-1), Rule 20 of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RACCS). This provision states that 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 last known address.

Why AWOL Is a Serious Offense

The Court emphasized that prolonged unauthorized absence causes inefficiency in public service. A court employee's continued absence without leave disrupts the normal functions of the court. It contravenes the public servant's duty to serve the public with the utmost degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency.

The Court reiterated that everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice carries a heavy burden of responsibility. Any act or omission that violates the norm of public accountability, or even tends to diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary, cannot be countenanced. By going on AWOL, Laqui grossly disregarded and neglected the duties of his office.

Non-Disciplinary Nature of Dropping from the Rolls

Importantly, the Court clarified that separation from service for unauthorized absences is non-disciplinary in nature. Under Section 110, Rule 20 of the 2017 RACCS, this mode of separation does not result in the forfeiture of any benefits or disqualification from re-employment in the government. Thus, Laqui remained qualified to receive benefits he may be entitled to under existing laws and could still be re-employed in government service.

Practical Takeaways

• Thirty-day rule: A government employee who is continuously AWOL for at least thirty working days may be dropped from the rolls without prior notice.
• Immediate effect: The separation takes effect immediately upon the lapse of the thirty-day period, although the employee must be notified at his last known address.
• Right to appeal: The employee has fifteen days from receipt of the notice to appeal the separation.
• Non-disciplinary consequence: Dropping from the rolls for AWOL is not a penalty; it does not forfeit benefits or bar future government employment.
• Judiciary standards: Court personnel are held to the highest standards of accountability, and unauthorized absences are treated with particular severity.

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