Binay v. Odeña
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Emerita Odeña was employed as a teacher in the Makati Nursery School and later as Clerk 1 at the Makati High School. On June 1, 2000, petitioner Priscilla Ferrolino confronted respondent regarding her alleged failure to report for work since November 1999. Respondent denied the absence and presented an employee's logbook as proof of attendance, which petitioner Ferrolino disregarded. On June 2, 2000, the Officer-In-Charge of the Timekeeper Section recommended action against respondent for not reporting for duty since November 10, 1999. On June 8, 2000, petitioner Elenita S. Binay issued a memorandum dropping respondent from the rolls effective May 15, 2000, due to alleged absences without official leave (AWOL) from November 10, 1999. Respondent's motion for reconsideration was denied. Procedural History: The Civil Service Commission (CSC), in Resolution No. 010962, set aside the memorandum dropping respondent from the rolls, finding that the action was not supported by evidence. The CSC noted that respondent incurred absences but not for a continuous period of at least thirty (30) working days. The CSC also found that respondent's attendance sheet complied with CSC Memorandum Circular No. 21, Series of 1991, and that respondent received her salary for the period, which would be unlikely if she were absent. The CSC's denial of petitioners' motion for reconsideration was affirmed in Resolution No. 021491. Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The Petition: The CA, in its May 14, 2004 Decision, denied petitioners' appeal for lack of merit, affirming the CSC resolutions with modification regarding the computation of back salaries. The CA ruled that back salaries are limited to a maximum of five years. Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's affirmation of the CSC's finding that the City Government of Makati had no basis for dropping respondent from the rolls.
Issue(s)
Whether the Supreme Court can review the factual findings of the Civil Service Commission and the Court of Appeals. Whether the respondent was validly dropped from the rolls for absence without official leave (AWOL).
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The assailed Court of Appeals Decision dated May 14, 2004, is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of reviewing factual findings: The Supreme Court reiterated that in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45, only questions of law may be raised. A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while a question of fact arises when the doubt pertains to the truth or falsity of alleged facts. The Court emphasized that it is not a trier of facts and cannot re-evaluate the probative value of evidence presented by the litigants. In this case, the petitioners' arguments involved questioning the weight and credence given to evidence, the validity of certifications, and introducing new evidence, all of which are factual in nature. Therefore, the Court was constrained from exercising its jurisdiction as the issues raised were not purely questions of law. The factual findings of the CSC, when adopted and confirmed by the CA and supported by substantial evidence, are accorded respect and finality. On the issue of dropping from the rolls for AWOL: The Court affirmed the CSC and CA rulings that the respondent was illegally dismissed. It is a fundamental principle that in cases of dismissal from employment, the burden of proof rests upon the employer to demonstrate the validity of the dismissal. The petitioners failed to discharge this burden. The basis for dropping an employee is Section 63, Rule XVI of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations, which requires continuous absence without approved leave for at least thirty (30) calendar days. The CSC and CA found that the respondent did not incur such continuous absence. Evidence presented, such as the respondent's salary payments for the contested period and the finding that the claim of 400 absences in six months was mathematically impossible, supported the conclusion that the respondent was not AWOL. Furthermore, the petitioners' attempt to discredit the supervisor's verification of attendance was found to be illogical and did not prove the alleged continuous absence.
Main Doctrine
The employer bears the burden of proof to establish the validity of an employee's dismissal, particularly when based on absence without official leave (AWOL). Factual findings of quasi-judicial bodies like the Civil Service Commission, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals and supported by substantial evidence, are accorded respect and finality.