Quezon v. Borromeo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Emilie J. Quezon, Chief Nurse II at Iligan City Hospital, was granted a 12-month special study detail in 1977. She requested and was granted a one-year extension, which consumed her leave credits by July 1978. She then requested a second extension of seven months, which was apparently approved despite concerns about the course not being stipulated and her services being urgently needed. She subsequently requested a third extension of five months, which was not acted upon, and a fourth extension of twelve months, which was ultimately disapproved by the Regional Director in January 1981, citing violation of Civil Service Rules regarding leave without pay exceeding one year. Meanwhile, Lourdes Crisol was appointed acting Chief Nurse II and later permanent Chief Nurse II, vice Emilie Quezon, dropped from the service. Procedural History: Petitioner reported for duty in March 1982, four years and nine months after her initial leave, and was informed she had been dropped from the service. She questioned this, and the Regional Health Director explained her separation was due to being absent without leave (AWOL) and failure to report back. Her subsequent requests for reinstatement were forwarded to the Merit Systems Board, which initially ordered her reinstatement but later reconsidered and set aside its decision, holding that her dropping from the rolls was in order due to being AWOL and lacking approved extensions. The Civil Service Commission affirmed this decision, dismissing her appeal. The Petition: Petitioner seeks annulment of the Civil Service Commission's resolution, asserting that the Merit Systems Board's initial decision had become final and executory before the motion for reconsideration was filed, and that she was denied procedural due process.
Issue(s)
Whether the motion for reconsideration filed by the Regional Health Office was filed out of time, rendering the subsequent decision of the Merit Systems Board void. Whether petitioner was denied procedural due process when she was dropped from the government service.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The decision of the Civil Service Commission is AFFIRMED. Petitioner was considered automatically separated from the service for being absent without leave (AWOL) for more than three years, and her separation was in order.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the timeliness of the motion for reconsideration: The Court held that the motion for reconsideration filed by the Regional Health Director was timely. The party adversely affected by the Merit Systems Board's initial decision was the Regional Health Director, who claimed he was never served a copy of the decision. The Court relied on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions, including the timeliness of the motion for reconsideration filed by the Regional Health Director and the subsequent reconsideration by the Merit Systems Board and affirmation by the Civil Service Commission. Petitioner failed to overcome this presumption by providing concrete proof of the lawyer's receipt of the decision and the date thereof. Therefore, the decision of February 22, 1983, had not become final and executory as to the Regional Health Director. On the issue of procedural due process: The Court ruled that petitioner was not denied procedural due process. Section 33, Rule XVI of the Revised Civil Service Rules provides for automatic separation from the service for employees on leave without pay who fail to return to duty after one year. While the rule requires written notice and warning before expiration of the leave, the Court, citing Isberto v. Raquiza and Ramo v. Elefano, held that this notice is not jurisdictional. The failure to provide such notice does not prevent the automatic separation. The Court found that petitioner was aware of her extended leave without pay and her repeated requests for extensions demonstrated this awareness. Her continued absence without approved extensions constituted abandonment of her position. The Court emphasized that the automatic nature of the sanction under Rule XVI, Section 33 is a means to ensure government service continuity. Petitioner was afforded procedural due process by being given a full hearing before the Merit Systems Board and the Civil Service Commission after she reported for work and demanded reinstatement, allowing her to contest the legality of her separation.
Main Doctrine
The failure to provide written notice to an employee regarding the expiration of their leave without pay does not prevent their automatic separation from service if they fail to return to duty, as such notice is not jurisdictional. Furthermore, an employee who remains on extended leave without pay without proper approval, and fails to return to work for a significant period, may be considered to have abandoned their position, thereby justifying their separation from service.