Philippine Coconut Authority v. Bienvenido Garrido
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Bienvenido R. Garrido, Deputy Administrator of the Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA), verbally sought permission from PCA Administrator Virgilio M. David to take a five-month vacation leave to accept a consultancy job abroad. Administrator David advised Garrido to ensure his request complied with Civil Service Rules and to prepare the necessary documents. Procedural History: On July 21, 1993, Garrido filed a formal application for leave from July 28, 1993, to December 17, 1993. He departed for Sierra Leone on July 28, 1993. On September 15, 1993, Administrator David issued a memorandum disapproving Garrido's leave application due to a 'legal impediment.' Garrido returned to the Philippines on December 18, 1993, and reported back to work on December 20, 1993, where he received the disapproval letter dated September 15, 1993. On January 11, 1994, Garrido refiled his vacation leave application and incorporated a sick leave application. On February 4, 1994, Garrido received a letter dated January 27, 1994, informing him that he was dropped from the rolls effective December 26, 1993, for being absent without official leave (AWOL) for more than thirty days, pursuant to Civil Service Memorandum No. 38, Series of 1993 (CSC MC No. 38, s. 1993). Garrido appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), which dismissed his appeal. His motion for reconsideration was also denied. The Petition: The Court of Appeals granted Garrido's petition for review, declaring his separation from the service illegal and ordering his reinstatement with backwages. The Court of Appeals held that the dropping of Garrido from the rolls was illegal for lack of prior notice, as required by Section 35, Rule XVI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292. The PCA's motion for reconsideration was denied for being filed one day late. Hence, the PCA filed the present petition for review on certiorari.
Issue(s)
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in denying the petitioner's motion for reconsideration for having been filed one (1) day late. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in holding that Section 35, Rule XVI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292, requiring due notice, should have been applied by the petitioner in dropping the respondent from the rolls.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated March 31, 1998, is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the first issue (denial of motion for reconsideration): The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling that the motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioner was one day late. Section 1, Rule 52 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure clearly states that a motion for reconsideration must be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice thereof, and this period is non-extendible. The failure to file within the reglementary period renders the decision final and executory, depriving the court of the power to alter or modify it. Therefore, the appellate court correctly denied the motion. On the second issue (application of Section 35, Rule XVI of the Omnibus Rules): The Court held that the Court of Appeals did not err in declaring respondent's separation from the service illegal. The petitioner considered the respondent AWOL from July 28, 1993, to December 19, 1993, due to the disapproval of his leave application. However, the Court found that Administrator David had verbally acknowledged the request for leave and advised the respondent to document it, giving him the benefit of the doubt. The respondent then filed his formal application. The disapproval came almost two months later, on September 15, 1993, without any explanation for the delay. This unexplained inaction created an impression that the leave was not impeded. Consequently, the respondent could not be considered AWOL for more than thirty days, making his separation from the service illegal. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the dropping of an employee from the rolls requires prior notice, as mandated by Section 35, Rule XVI of the Omnibus Rules. CSC MC No. 38, s. 1993, which purportedly did not require prior notice, became effective on October 21, 1993, after the disapproval of the leave application. Thus, the applicable rule required due notice, which was not given to the respondent. The letter informing him of his separation was dated January 27, 1994, and he was dropped effective December 26, 1993, confirming the lack of prior notice.
Main Doctrine
The dropping of a government employee from the rolls for absence without official leave (AWOL) requires prior notice to the employee, consistent with due process, unless a specific rule explicitly dispenses with such notice. The discretion of a department head in approving or disapproving leave applications must be exercised reasonably and not arbitrarily.