EVELYN GARCIA-CANTRE, PETITIONER, VS. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM AND CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS.

Garcia-Cantre versus Social Security System and Civil Service Commission

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by Evelyn Garcia-Cantre, a former Senior Technical Assistant of the Social Security System assigned to its National Capital Region Central Cluster Legal Unit, against the Social Security System and the Civil Service Commission. She asks the Supreme Court to reverse the Commission's ruling that affirmed her dropping from the rolls of government service on account of absences without approved leave. The case matters because it fixes the operative rules on absence without official leave, on the so-called automatic approval of leave applications, and on the demands of due process in administrative proceedings — all recurring bar material in the law on public officers.

Procedural History

Garcia-Cantre filed a complaint for non-payment of salaries and illegal constructive dismissal against the Social Security System before the Civil Service Commission National Capital Region office. She later wrote that her complaint should be treated as an appeal from the directive dropping her from the rolls. Although that letter was filed beyond the fifteen-day reglementary period to appeal, the regional office relaxed the technical rules in the interest of substantial justice and took cognizance of the appeal. In July 2009 the regional office dismissed the appeal and agreed with the Social Security System President that she should be dropped from the rolls. The Civil Service Commission proper was not persuaded by her arguments and affirmed. She then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court through a petition for review under Rule 43, raising the due process clause and the question of abandonment of work.

Facts

Garcia-Cantre requested a six-month vacation leave without pay effective October 12, 2006, to accompany her sick mother to Australia for a medical check-up and to renew ties with relatives. By a memorandum dated October 6, 2006, the Social Security System approved the request subject to conditions: submission of clearance from money and property accountabilities; the prospect of recall anytime if the exigency of service so requires; that there shall be no extension; a commitment to return upon expiration of the leave, subject to an administrative case for violation of office rules and regulations; and that no government fund shall be used. She then went on leave from October 12, 2006 to April 11, 2007.

She did not return to work after April 11, 2007. She claimed she wrote a letter dated March 31, 2007 seeking a four-month extension, but the letter did not reach the Social Security System, and there was no proof it was sent by mail. On May 3, 2007 her husband handed two resignation letters to the personnel department, but these were not indorsed to the Office of the President for lack of the requisite documentation. Learning that her March 31 letter had not been received, she had it delivered through her representative to the Office of the President on June 8, 2007. No action was taken on it.

She returned to the Philippines on June 21, 2007 and, on June 25, 2007, informed the administrative body that pending her request for extension she opted to return to work, and she performed office tasks. On June 28, 2007 the Cluster Legal Support Division issued a memorandum directing her to refrain from attending case hearings and performing work responsibilities pending resolution of her status. On July 18, 2007 she wrote the President reiterating that she withdrew her resignation and requesting salary reckoned from June 25, 2007. By July 20, 2007 she ceased reporting for work, and on July 27, 2007 she filed her complaint before the regional office. On September 6, 2007 the Social Security System issued an office order dropping her from the rolls effective May 25, 2007 for failure to report for work after the expiration of her approved leave.

Issues

• Whether or not Garcia-Cantre incurred absences without approved leave justifying her dropping from the rolls.
• Whether or not her application for extension of leave was automatically approved under the Omnibus Rules on Leave.
• Whether or not her return to work on June 25, 2007 barred the Social Security System from dropping her from the rolls.
• Whether or not she was denied due process by the Civil Service Commission.

Applicable Provisions

Section 63 of Rule XVI of the Omnibus Rules on Leave, as amended by Memorandum Circular 13, Series of 2007, provides:

Effect of absences without approved leave. - An official or an 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 (30) working days three times in a semester, such that a pattern is already apparent, dropping from the rolls without notice may likewise be justified. If the number of unauthorized absences incurred is less than thirty (30) working days, a written Return-to-Work Order shall be served to him at his last known address on record. Failure on his part to report for work within the period stated in the Order shall be a valid ground to drop him from the rolls.

This is the rule under which the Court sustained her separation, because she was continuously absent without approved leave for more than thirty days.

Section 49 of Rule XVI of the Omnibus Rules on Leave, which she invoked, provides:

Section 49. Period within which to act on leave application.— Whenever the application for leave of absence, including terminal leave, is not acted upon by the head of agency or his duly authorized representative within five (5) working days after receipt thereof, the application for leave of absence shall be deemed approved.

The Court held this rule unavailable to her because her application was not complete in form and substance and was received only after her original leave had expired.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that her absences from April 12, 2007 onward were unjustified. Her six-month leave lapsed on April 11, 2007, and her extension request reached the Social Security System only on June 8, 2007, by which time she had already incurred absences without official leave for more than thirty days. The Court stressed that no prior notice is required to drop an employee who is continuously absent without approved leave for at least thirty days, and that the notice contemplated by the proviso is not jurisdictional.

On the second issue, the Court rejected automatic approval. Under the Civil Service Rules, an application for leave must be in the prescribed form, filed within the period provided, and duly approved by the authorized officer. She accomplished no prescribed form, did not file five days in advance, and submitted the request only after her initial leave had expired. The Court adopted the Commission's reasoning that for the rule on automatic approval to operate, the leave application must first be complete in form and substance, for only then does the five-day period begin to run. The Court also noted that her original leave carried the express condition that it could not be extended.

On the third issue, the Court held that her return on June 25, 2007 did not erase the unauthorized absences already incurred. Two days later she was directed to desist from her duties pending evaluation of her status, so her comeback was not without protestation from the Social Security System.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that there was no denial of due process, because the essence of due process in administrative proceedings is the opportunity to explain one's side or seek reconsideration, and the Commission had closely scrutinized the documentary evidence. As the Court put it:

It is a familiar maxim in law that “the essence of due process in administrative proceedings is the opportunity to explain one’s side or seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. As long as the parties are given the opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered, the demands of due process are sufficiently met. What is offensive to due process is the denial of the opportunity to be heard. The Court has repeatedly stressed that parties who chose not to avail themselves of the opportunity to answer charges against them cannot complain of a denial of due process.”

Doctrine

• An official or employee continuously absent without approved leave for at least thirty working days is considered on absence without official leave and may be separated from the service or dropped from the rolls without prior notice; the notice is not jurisdictional.
• The rule on automatic approval of a leave application applies only when the application is complete in form and substance; only then does the five-day period begin to run.
• A belated return to work does not erase absences without approved leave already incurred, especially where the employer promptly protests and places the employee's status under scrutiny.
• The essence of due process in administrative proceedings is the opportunity to explain one's side or seek reconsideration; what is offensive is the denial of that opportunity.

Disposition

The petition for review was denied for lack of merit, and the decision and resolution of the Civil Service Commission were affirmed; Garcia-Cantre lost and remained dropped from the rolls.

Remember This

Memorize the line that thirty working days of continuous absence without approved leave justifies dropping from the rolls without prior notice, and that automatic approval of leave requires a complete application. Examiners use this case in public officers and administrative law to test absence without official leave, the requisites of automatic leave approval, and the standard of due process in administrative bodies.