Garrobo, Absence Without Official Leave
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Edwin V. Garrobo, Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 156, failed to submit his Daily Time Records (DTRs)/Bundy Cards from December 2003 to the present. He incurred more than 30 consecutive absences without leave since December 1, 2003. Mr. Garrobo explained that his absences in December 2003 were due to a remark by Judge Alex L. Quiroz that he did not want to see his face in court after Mr. Garrobo enforced a writ of execution. He claimed his absences were covered by a leave application signed by Atty. Albert N. Lavandero. His attempts to seek leave in January 2004 were not granted, and he met a vehicular accident on January 19, 2004, causing fractures and bruises. Procedural History: The Office of Administrative Services (OAS) of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended the withholding of Mr. Garrobo’s salaries and benefits for non-submission of DTRs/Bundy Cards, which the Court granted. Mr. Garrobo requested a detail from Branch 156 to the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC) due to alleged refusal of entry at Branch 156. This detail was initially approved but later held in abeyance by the Chief Justice, directing Mr. Garrobo to return to his mother unit. Mr. Garrobo did not report for work from August 1, 2004. The Branch Clerk of Court reported that Mr. Garrobo had not reported to work nor expressed intent to do so, recommending he be dropped from the rolls. The OCA recommended that Mr. Garrobo be dropped from the rolls effective August 1, 2004, citing Section 63, Rule XVI of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations. The Petition: This administrative matter concerns the absence without official leave of Edwin V. Garrobo and the subsequent recommendation to drop him from the rolls.
Issue(s)
Whether Mr. Edwin V. Garrobo should be dropped from the rolls due to prolonged absence without official leave. Whether Mr. Garrobo's prolonged absence constitutes conduct prejudicial to the best interest of public service.
Ruling
The Court ruled in the affirmative. Mr. Edwin V. Garrobo is hereby DROPPED from the service and his position is DECLARED VACANT.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether Mr. Edwin V. Garrobo should be dropped from the rolls due to prolonged absence without official leave: The Court held that Mr. Garrobo falls within the purview of Section 63, Rule XVI of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations, as amended. This provision states that an official or employee continuously absent without approved leave for at least thirty (30) calendar days shall be considered on absence without official leave (AWOL) and shall be separated from the service or dropped from the rolls without prior notice. The Court noted that Mr. Garrobo defied the express directive of the Court to report back to his mother unit and chose not to report for work since August 1, 2004, to the prejudice of the service. The provision does not require prior notice before dropping an employee from the rolls under such circumstances. On the issue of whether Mr. Garrobo's prolonged absence constitutes conduct prejudicial to the best interest of public service: The Court reiterated its pronouncement that any act falling short of the existing standards for public service, especially for those expected to preserve the image of the judiciary, shall not be countenanced. Public office is a public trust, and public officers must at all times be accountable to the people and serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency. A court employee's AWOL for a prolonged period constitutes conduct prejudicial to the best interest of public service and warrants the penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of benefits. The Court emphasized that the conduct and behavior of those connected with the dispensation of justice are circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility, and any act or omission that violates the norm of public accountability and diminishes public faith in the judiciary cannot be countenanced.
Main Doctrine
An official or employee who is continuously absent without approved leave for at least thirty (30) calendar days shall be considered on absence without official leave (AWOL) and shall be separated from the service or dropped from the rolls without prior notice. Such prolonged absence constitutes conduct prejudicial to the best interest of public service and warrants dismissal.