Monsanto, Absence Without Official Leave
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This administrative matter concerns Alberto V. Monsanto, Utility Worker I of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Catbalogan, Samar, who failed to submit his Daily Time Records (DTRs)/Bundy Cards from May 2005 up to the present and did not file any leave application. Procedural History: On September 26, 2005, the OCA Leave Division sent a telegram requiring Mr. Monsanto to submit the required DTRs/Bundy Cards for May, June, July, and August 2005, otherwise, his salaries would be withheld. On October 5, 2005, the OAS requested the Presiding Judge to serve a warning letter requiring Mr. Monsanto to explain his unauthorized absences, or face recommendation for dropping from the rolls. On October 7, 2005, the OCA recommended the withholding of his salaries and benefits. To date, Mr. Monsanto has not reported back to work nor complied with any OCA directives. On April 21, 2006, the OCA recommended that Mr. Monsanto be dropped from the rolls effective May 3, 2005, and his position declared vacant, citing Section 63, Rule XVI of the Omnibus Rules on Leave. The Petition: The OCA recommended the dropping of Mr. Alberto V. Monsanto from the rolls due to his prolonged absence without official leave.
Issue(s)
Whether Mr. Alberto V. Monsanto should be dropped from the rolls for continuous absence without official leave. Whether the prolonged absence of Mr. Monsanto constitutes conduct prejudicial to the best interest of public service.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the recommendation of the OCA. Mr. Alberto V. Monsanto was dropped from the service and his position was declared vacant.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of being dropped from the rolls for continuous absence without official leave: The Court affirmed the recommendation to drop Mr. Alberto V. Monsanto from the rolls. The Court cited Section 63, Rule XVI of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations, as amended, which 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. Mr. Monsanto's continuous absence from May 3, 2005, without reporting back to work or complying with directives, clearly falls within the purview of this provision. The Court emphasized that this provision does not require prior notice before an employee can be dropped from the rolls for such prolonged absence. The absence was to the prejudice of the service. On the issue of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of public service: The Court held that Mr. Monsanto's AWOL for a prolonged period constitutes conduct prejudicial to the best interest of public service and warrants dismissal. The Court reiterated its pronouncements that any act falling short of the existing standards for public service, especially for those connected with the judiciary, shall not be countenanced. Public office is a public trust, and public officers must be accountable to the people with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency. The Court stressed 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 or diminishes faith in the judiciary cannot be tolerated. Mr. Monsanto's prolonged absence directly contravened these principles.
Main Doctrine
An 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.