Maxino v. Jasmin
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Judge Roderick A. Maxino filed an administrative complaint for usurpation of authority against respondent Jaime M. Jasmin, a Legal Researcher II. The Court dismissed this complaint for lack of merit. Procedural History: Following the dismissal, respondent requested to process his back salaries, release of benefits, and to return to work, citing medical certifications. The Court referred these requests to the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB). The Petition: The JIB found that while the Medical Services of the Supreme Court approved respondent's sick leave for July 2018, he had not reported for work since August 2018. Citing Section 107 of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in Civil Service (2017 RACCS), the JIB recommended that respondent be dropped from the rolls effective August 1, 2018, and his position declared vacant. The Court adopted this recommendation.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court should grant respondent's request to return to work. Whether the procedure for dropping an employee from the rolls due to Absence Without Official Leave (AWOL) is disciplinary in nature.
Ruling
The Court adopted and approved the findings and recommendation of the Judicial Integrity Board. Respondent Jaime M. Jasmin was dropped from the rolls effective August 1, 2018, and his position was declared vacant. He remains qualified to receive benefits until July 31, 2018, and may be reemployed in the government.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the Court should grant respondent's request to return to work: The Court denied the request, agreeing with the JIB's recommendation. The respondent had been continuously absent without official leave since August 2018. Section 107(a)(1) of the 2017 RACCS clearly 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. This provision was correctly applied by the JIB. Furthermore, the respondent was not prevented from reporting to work during the pendency of the administrative complaint against him. His prolonged absence without official leave demonstrated a failure to adhere to the high standards of public accountability and caused disruption to his office's operations. On whether the procedure for dropping an employee from the rolls due to AWOL is disciplinary in nature: The Court clarified that the procedure for dropping an employee from the rolls due to AWOL is not disciplinary. This is distinct from habitual absenteeism, which is a less serious charge under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. Rule 140 governs the discipline of Judiciary personnel, whereas dropping from the rolls is a separate procedure for separation from service. Section 110 of the 2017 RACCS explicitly states that this mode of separation is non-disciplinary and does not result in the forfeiture of benefits or disqualification from reemployment in the government. Therefore, the JIB correctly applied the 2017 RACCS, which is not disciplinary in nature.
Main Doctrine
An employee who is continuously absent without official leave for at least thirty (30) working days may be dropped from the rolls without prior notice, and this procedure is non-disciplinary in nature, not resulting in forfeiture of benefits or disqualification from reemployment.