Re: Dropping from the Rolls of Laqui, Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Victor R. Laqui, Jr. (Laqui), Cash Clerk II, Office of the Clerk of Court, Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila, failed to submit his Daily Time Records (DTRs) from March 2018 onwards and did not seek leave for his absences, resulting in his being on absence without official leave (AWOL) since March 1, 2018. Procedural History: The Executive Judge informed the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) of Laqui's AWOL status. The OCA issued a Memorandum ordering the withholding of Laqui's salaries and benefits for failure to submit DTRs. The OCA, after verifying that Laqui had not filed for retirement, was still in the active service plantilla, was not an accountable officer, and had no pending administrative case, recommended that Laqui be dropped from the rolls effective March 1, 2018, with his position declared vacant. The OCA also noted that Laqui remained qualified for benefits and re-employment. The Petition: This administrative matter concerns the recommendation of the OCA to drop Laqui from the rolls.
Issue(s)
Whether Victor R. Laqui, Jr. should be dropped from the rolls for being on absence without official leave (AWOL) for more than thirty (30) working days. Whether the separation from service for unauthorized absences is disciplinary in nature and results in forfeiture of benefits or disqualification from re-employment.
Ruling
The Court adopted the recommendation of the OCA. Victor R. Laqui, Jr. is dropped from the rolls effective March 1, 2018, and his position is declared vacant. He is, however, still qualified to receive his entitled benefits and may be reemployed in the government.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether Victor R. Laqui, Jr. should be dropped from the rolls for being on absence without official leave (AWOL) for more than thirty (30) working days: The Court ruled in the affirmative, citing Section 107 a-1, Rule 20 of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RACCS). This provision explicitly states that an official or employee continuously absent without official leave for at least thirty (30) working days may be dropped from the rolls without prior notice, effective immediately. Laqui's continuous absence since March 1, 2018, clearly falls within this ground. Prolonged unauthorized absence is detrimental to public service efficiency, disrupts court functions, and contravenes the duty of public servants to serve with responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency. The conduct of court employees is circumscribed by a heavy burden of responsibility, and any act or omission that violates public accountability or diminishes faith in the Judiciary cannot be countenanced. Laqui's AWOL demonstrated a gross disregard and neglect of his duties, failing to adhere to the high standards of public accountability required of government service. On whether the separation from service for unauthorized absences is disciplinary in nature and results in forfeiture of benefits or disqualification from re-employment: The Court clarified that separation from the service for unauthorized absences is non-disciplinary in nature. This is in accordance with Section 110, Rule 20 of the 2017 RACCS, which states that this mode of separation is not disciplinary and does not result in the forfeiture of any benefit or disqualification from re-employment in the government. Therefore, despite being dropped from the rolls, Laqui remains qualified to receive any benefits he may be entitled to under existing laws and is eligible for re-employment in the government.
Main Doctrine
An employee continuously absent without approved leave for at least thirty (30) working days may be dropped from the rolls without prior notice, and this separation is non-disciplinary in nature, not resulting in forfeiture of benefits or disqualification from re-employment.