Jaucian v. Wycoco
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Ronald C. Jaucian, an Intelligence Agent I at the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) on permanent status, received multiple notices regarding his failure to comply with Civil Service rules on attendance and submission of Daily Time Records (DTRs). His 201 file indicated numerous instances of warnings, required explanations, and orders to withhold salary due to irregular entries or failure to submit DTRs. Consequently, he was issued a Notice/Order of Separation effective September 5, 2000, for being on unauthorized leave of absence (AWOL) since May 12, 2000. Procedural History: Petitioner sought reconsideration, denying he was AWOL and claiming he reported for work, though admitting non-compliance with the biometric system due to the nature of his assignments. He submitted supporting documents. NBI Director Federico M. Opinion, Jr. approved his reconsideration request with a handwritten note and subsequently issued re-employment papers appointing petitioner as Intelligence Agent I on a coterminous status. Petitioner refused to fill up the required personal data sheet for the coterminous appointment and continued to be absent until March 19, 2001, leading to another dropping from the rolls. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) ruled that petitioner was illegally dismissed and directed his reinstatement with back salaries. Upon motion for reconsideration, the CSC deleted the award of backwages. The NBI appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed the CSC ruling, upholding the coterminous appointment and declaring it valid. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's decision, arguing that the approval of his reconsideration meant automatic reinstatement to his permanent position, that the coterminous appointment was issued without due process and his consent, and that he was entitled to backwages.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in interpreting Director Opinion's approval of the reconsideration as a rehiring to a coterminous position. Whether the Civil Service Commission interfered with the discretion of the appointing authority by upholding the petitioner's claim of illegal termination and downgrading of appointment status. Whether the petitioner is entitled to backwages.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The Decision dated April 23, 2004, and the Resolution dated July 30, 2004, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 72648 are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the coterminous appointment and grave abuse of discretion: The Court ruled that the Court of Appeals did not err in upholding the coterminous appointment. Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 12 (Series of 1994) mandates that an employee on AWOL for at least thirty (30) calendar days shall be dropped from the rolls without prior notice. At the time Director Opinion acted on petitioner's reconsideration, petitioner had already been dropped from the rolls and was no longer an employee of the NBI. Therefore, new re-employment papers were necessary. The approval of the reconsideration, knowing he was dropped from the rolls, necessitated a new appointment, and Director Opinion exercised his discretion in extending a coterminous appointment. The power of appointment involves wisdom that only the appointing authority can decide, and the CSC cannot curtail or diminish this discretion. By annulling Director Opinion's appointment of petitioner on a coterminous basis, the CSC acted beyond its authority. On the issue of illegal dismissal and interference with appointing authority: The Court held that petitioner cannot claim illegal dismissal and entitlement to backwages because his employment was severed by operation of law due to his failure to comply with attendance rules. His separation was automatic for his refusal to comply with regulations. The CSC's ruling that he was illegally dismissed and its direction for reinstatement with back salaries, and its subsequent recall of the coterminous appointment, constituted interference with the appointing authority's discretion. The appointing authority has the prerogative to determine the nature of the appointment, and the CSC cannot substitute its judgment for that of the appointing power. The petitioner was no longer employed when the coterminous appointment was offered. On the issue of entitlement to backwages: The Court affirmed that petitioner is not entitled to backwages. This is because he was not illegally dismissed, as his separation was a consequence of his own actions and the operation of law. Furthermore, the Court noted that petitioner failed to appeal the decision of the CSC denying him backwages in the first instance, which would have been a procedural bar to claiming them before the Supreme Court.
Main Doctrine
An employee automatically dropped from the rolls for being AWOL is considered separated from service by operation of law, and any subsequent re-employment requires new appointment papers, with the appointing authority having discretion on the nature of the appointment, such as coterminous status.