AVELTO T. ORANTE, PETITIONER, VS. SALVADOR B. BANARIA, JR. AND HON. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS.

Orante versus Banaria

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by a police officer, Avelto Orante, against his former station commander, Salvador Banaria, Junior, and the Civil Service Commission. Orante was dismissed from the police service for being absent without official leave, and he asks the Supreme Court to reverse the Commission, which had dismissed his appeal as late and, on the merits, affirmed his dismissal. The case matters for two reasons: it is a clean statement that the right to appeal is a mere statutory privilege that must be exercised within the prescribed period, and it is a firm reminder that a public officer who abandons his post and fails to file the required leave application commits gross neglect of duty deserving of dismissal.

Procedural History

Banaria filed a complaint for serious neglect of duty before the National Police Commission and the Philippine National Police. The PNP Regional Office 5 dismissed Orante from the police service. His motion for reconsideration was denied. He appealed to the National Police Commission Regional Appellate Board 5, which affirmed the dismissal. He then went to the Office of the Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government, which likewise denied his appeal and later denied his motion for reconsideration. Orante then appealed to the Civil Service Commission, which dismissed the appeal for having been filed out of time and, in any event, found him to have been on absence without official leave. The Commission denied his motion for reconsideration. He then filed this petition for review before the Supreme Court under Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court.

Facts

Orante was a police officer assigned to the Balatan Municipal Police Station in Camarines Sur. Sometime in October 2005, Banaria took his oath as officer in charge of that station. As a matter of standard procedure, he conducted an inventory of his personnel through a roll call, and Orante was absent. Banaria ordered that Orante be sought at his given address, but the efforts to locate him proved futile. Banaria then filed a complaint for serious neglect of duty, alleging that Orante had been continuously absent without official leave since the seventh of October 2005.

In his defense, Orante denied the charge and claimed that he had been confined at the PNP General Hospital and had undergone an operation, after which he remained under the continuous care of a hospital doctor. He maintained that his absences were justified because he suffered from rectal bleeding and had been confined at the hospital three times for that condition. He also pointed to his numerous awards from the police force and argued that dismissal was too harsh a penalty.

The records showed that Orante had been absent from work for more than four hundred days from April 2005 until March 2007 without filing the necessary application for leave. Although he was hospitalized only three times, he failed to account for his absences each time he was released from confinement. He filed an application for leave only about two years after he first incurred the absences, and only after the administrative charge had already been lodged against him. At the time of his dismissal, his unauthorized absences had accumulated to six hundred thirty seven days.

Issues

• Whether or not the Civil Service Commission committed reversible error in dismissing Orante's appeal for having been filed out of time, instead of liberally relaxing the period to appeal on the ground of financial constraints.
• Whether or not the Civil Service Commission correctly affirmed Orante's dismissal from the police service for absence without official leave, and whether or not his length of service should mitigate the penalty.

Applicable Provisions

Section 63 of Rule Sixteen of the Omnibus Rules on Leave provides:

Section 63. Effect of absences without approved leave. An official or employee who is continuously absent without approved leave for at least thirty (30) working 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. However, when it is clear under the obtaining circumstances that the official or employee concerned, has established a scheme to circumvent the rule by incurring substantial absences though less than thirty working (30) days 3x in a semester, such that a pattern is already apparent, dropping from the rolls without notice may likewise be justified.

This is the codal basis for the penalty: continuous absence without approved leave for at least thirty working days warrants separation from the service, and Orante's absences far exceeded that threshold.

Section 4(b) of Republic Act Number 6713, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, provides:

Professionalism. Public officials and employees shall perform and discharge their duties with the highest degree of excellence, professionalism, intelligence and skill. They shall enter public service with utmost devotion and dedication to duty. They shall endeavor to discourage wrong perceptions of their roles as dispensers or peddlers of undue patronage.

This standard of professionalism is the measure against which Orante's abandonment of his post is judged, and it is the basis for treating his conduct as gross neglect of duty.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition has no merit. The right to appeal is not a constitutional, natural, or inherent right; it is a statutory privilege of statutory origin, available only if granted and only in the manner prescribed by law. The Court rejected the excuse of financial constraints, holding that the non-observance of the periods to appeal on that basis is hardly persuasive. Since Orante failed to appeal within the period fixed by the rules, the Civil Service Commission correctly dismissed his appeal.

On the second issue, the Court held that even if it brushed aside the procedural lapse, the petition would still fail. There was sufficient basis, established by substantial evidence, to support the finding that Orante incurred absences without official leave, and he must be meted the penalty of dismissal. The Court defined gross negligence as the want of even the slightest care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected; in the case of public officials, there is gross negligence when the breach of duty is flagrant and palpable. By going on absence without official leave, Orante cavalierly disregarded and neglected the duties of his office and failed to adhere to the high standards of public accountability imposed on all those in government service.

The Court also held that his belated effort to file an application for leave two years after he first incurred his absences would not save him, because the timeliness of that intention raised suspicion. His notification of his condition through radio communication did not pass muster, since a leave application is made through the filing of an accomplished leave form, and prudence dictated that he report to his immediate superior every time he was discharged from the hospital. Finally, the Court found no compelling reason to consider his length of service in extenuating his liability, even as it acknowledged that length of service may in certain instances be considered as an alternative circumstance that can mitigate or even aggravate the penalty.

Doctrine

First, the right to appeal is not a constitutional, natural, or inherent right; it is a statutory privilege of statutory origin, available only if granted or as provided by statutes, and it may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by law. Financial constraints do not justify the non-observance of the periods to appeal.

Second, under Section 63 of Rule Sixteen of the Omnibus Rules on Leave, an official or employee who is continuously absent without approved leave for at least thirty working days is considered on absence without official leave and shall be separated from the service or dropped from the rolls without prior notice.

Third, gross negligence is negligence characterized by the want of even the slightest care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected; for public officials, there is gross negligence when the breach of duty is flagrant and palpable. A public officer who abandons his post and fails to file the required leave application violates the professionalism mandated by Section 4(b) of Republic Act Number 6713 and commits gross neglect of duty.

Disposition

The petition was denied, and the decision and resolution of the Civil Service Commission were affirmed; Orante lost, and his dismissal from the police service stands.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the right to appeal is a statutory privilege, not a constitutional or natural right, and that absence without approved leave for at least thirty working days under Section 63 of Rule Sixteen of the Omnibus Rules on Leave warrants separation from the service. Examiners use this case on the non-liberal relaxation of appeal periods and on gross neglect of duty by a public officer who goes on absence without official leave.