RE: DROPPING FROM THE ROLLS OF MR. ARNO D. DEL ROSARIO, COURT STENOGRAPHER II, BRANCH 41, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT (METC), QUEZON CITY.

Re: Dropping from the Rolls of Mr. Arno D. Del Rosario

The Case

This is an administrative matter concerning Mr. Arno Del Rosario, a Court Stenographer II of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 41. It arose not from a complaint charging him with an offense, but from a letter of the presiding judge of his court asking that he be dropped from the rolls because he had stopped reporting for work without any approved leave. The case matters to a reviewee because it is the clean, uncontested illustration of the remedy of dropping from the rolls: a remedy that is administrative rather than disciplinary, and whose consequences are carefully limited. It shows how the Court treats prolonged unauthorized absence by court personnel, and what that separation does and does not take away from the employee.

Procedural History

The matter began in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 41, when its presiding judge, Judge Analie Oga-Brual, sent a letter dated September 6, 2017 requesting that Del Rosario be dropped from the rolls or that his position be declared vacant, given his absences without official leave. The letter was referred to the Office of the Court Administrator, which, in a memorandum dated November 23, 2017, recommended that Del Rosario be dropped from the rolls, that his position be declared vacant, and that he be informed of his separation from the service. The Office of the Court Administrator also clarified that he remained qualified to receive the benefits to which he was entitled under existing laws and could still be re-employed in the government service. The matter then came before the Supreme Court as an administrative matter, and the Court adopted the findings and recommendations of the Office of the Court Administrator.

Facts

The records of the Employees' Leave Division of the Office of the Court Administrator showed that Del Rosario had not submitted his daily time record from February 3, 2017 onward, nor any application for leave covering that period. He was therefore absent without approved leave from that date.

The records also showed that the Office of the Court Administrator had received an application for retirement from Del Rosario effective February 3, 2017, but that he had not submitted the documents necessary for its approval. Because of this, his name was excluded from the payroll starting April 2017. Even so, the Personnel Division stated that he remained in the plantilla of personnel and was therefore considered in active service.

It was in this setting that the presiding judge wrote her letter of September 6, 2017, asking that Del Rosario be dropped from the rolls or that his position be declared vacant. At the time of the decision, he had not reported for work since February 3, 2017.

Issues

• Whether or not Del Rosario should be dropped from the rolls due to his absences without official leave.

Applicable Provisions

Section 107, Rule 20 of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides:

Section 107. Grounds and Procedure for Dropping from the Rolls. Officers and employees who are absent without approved leave, x x x may be dropped from the rolls within thirty (30) days from the time a ground therefor arises subject to the following procedures: a. Absence Without Approved Leave An official or employee who is continuously absent without official leave (AWOL) for at least thirty (30) working days may be dropped from the rolls without prior notice which shall take effect immediately. He/she shall, however, have the right to appeal his/her separation within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the notice of separation which must be sent to his/her last known address. x x x x

This is the provision that authorizes and sets the procedure for dropping an employee from the rolls, and it supplies the thirty working day standard applied to Del Rosario.

Section 63, Rule XVI of the Omnibus Rules on Leave, as amended by Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 13, Series of 2007, 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. x x x.

The Court cites this provision as consonant with the rule in the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, confirming that continuous absence without approved leave for at least thirty working days carries separation from the service or dropping from the rolls without prior notice.

Ruling

The Court resolved the sole issue against Del Rosario. It adopted the findings and recommendations of the Office of the Court Administrator and held that he should be dropped from the rolls. It was undisputed that he had been absent without official leave since February 3, 2017, a period far exceeding the thirty working days required by the rule.

The Court explained that his prolonged unauthorized absences caused inefficiency in the public service because they disrupted the normal functions of the court. They contravened the duty of a public servant to serve with the utmost degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency. The Court stressed that a court personnel's conduct is circumscribed with the heavy responsibility of upholding public accountability and maintaining the people's faith in the judiciary. By failing to report for work from February 3, 2017 up to the present, Del Rosario grossly disregarded and neglected the duties of his office and failed to adhere to the high standards of public accountability imposed on all those in the government service.

The Court then drew a distinction that a reviewee must not miss. It emphasized that the case is non-disciplinary in nature. Because of that, Del Rosario's separation from the service would neither result in the forfeiture of any benefits that had accrued in his favor, nor in his disqualification from re-employment in the government service.

Doctrine

An official or employee who is continuously absent without official leave for at least thirty working days may be dropped from the rolls without prior notice, and the dropping takes effect immediately. The employee retains the right to appeal the separation within fifteen days from receipt of the notice of separation, which must be sent to his or her last known address.

Dropping from the rolls is non-disciplinary in nature. It is not a penalty for an offense. It follows, as a rule, that the separation does not forfeit the benefits that have already accrued in the employee's favor, and it does not disqualify the employee from re-employment in the government service.

Prolonged unauthorized absence by court personnel disrupts the normal functions of the court and violates the duty to serve with the utmost degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, as well as the high standards of public accountability imposed on all those in the government service.

Disposition

The Court dropped Mr. Arno Del Rosario from the rolls effective February 3, 2017, declared his position vacant, and ordered that he be informed of his separation at his last known address, while preserving his right to the benefits he may be entitled to under existing laws and his eligibility for re-employment in the government.

Remember This

Memorize the line that dropping from the rolls is non-disciplinary, so it carries no forfeiture of accrued benefits and no disqualification from re-employment. Examiners use this case to test the thirty working day rule on absence without official leave and the distinction between dropping from the rolls and a disciplinary penalty.