Absence Without Leave (AWOL): When is an Employee’s Dismissal Justified?

TLDR: This case clarifies the circumstances under which a government employee can be dropped from the rolls for being absent without leave (AWOL). It emphasizes that while security of tenure is a constitutional right, employees can be terminated without prior notice if they are AWOL for at least 30 days, according to Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular No. 38, Series of 1993.

G.R. No. 138348, December 09, 2005

Introduction

Imagine a government employee, confident in their permanent position, suddenly finding themselves terminated without warning. This scenario highlights the critical balance between an employee’s right to security of tenure and the government’s need to maintain an efficient workforce. The case of Municipality of Butig, Lanao del Sur vs. Court of Appeals and Zaalika Mangondaya, et al. sheds light on this issue, specifically addressing when an employee can be dropped from the rolls for being absent without leave (AWOL).

This case revolves around a group of municipal employees in Butig, Lanao del Sur, who were terminated after failing to report for work following a change in mayoral administration. The central legal question is whether their termination was legal, considering their permanent appointments and the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure.

Legal Context: Security of Tenure and AWOL

The Philippine Constitution guarantees security of tenure for civil service employees. This means they cannot be removed or suspended except for cause provided by law and after due process. Article IX-B, Section 2(3) of the 1987 Constitution explicitly states: “No officer or employee of the civil service shall be removed or suspended except for cause provided by law.”

However, this right is not absolute. One recognized exception is when an employee is absent without leave (AWOL) for an extended period. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) has issued memorandum circulars outlining the procedures for dealing with AWOL employees. Key to this case is Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 38, Series of 1993, which allows the dropping of employees from the rolls without prior notice if they are absent for at least 30 days without approved leave.

It’s important to distinguish between disciplinary and non-disciplinary actions. Dropping an employee from the rolls due to AWOL is considered a non-disciplinary action. This means it doesn’t necessarily involve misconduct or fault on the employee’s part. It simply acknowledges that the employee is not fulfilling their duties due to their absence.

Case Breakdown: From Dismissal to Supreme Court

The story begins with Abdulrahman M. Romato, the Municipal Mayor of Butig, Lanao del Sur, appointing several individuals to various positions within the municipal government. These appointments were mostly permanent.

However, political turmoil ensued. In 1993, an electoral protest unseated Mayor Romato, and Palawan Amatonding was declared the new mayor. Upon assuming office, Mayor Amatonding issued a memorandum requiring the employees appointed by Romato to report for work and explain their absence. When they failed to comply, he issued termination notices, citing abandonment of office and unauthorized absences.

Here’s a breakdown of the key events:

• November 23, 1993: COMELEC declares Palawan Amatonding the duly elected Municipal Mayor.
• December 25, 1993: Mayor Amatonding issues a memorandum to the Romato appointees, requiring them to report for work.
• January 31, 1994: Mayor Amatonding issues termination notices to the employees who failed to report.
• December 15, 1994: The terminated employees file a complaint for illegal dismissal.

The case then went through several levels of administrative and judicial review. The Civil Service Commission Regional Office (CSCRO) initially ruled in favor of the employees with permanent appointments, ordering their reinstatement and payment of backwages. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) affirmed this decision. However, the Supreme Court ultimately reversed the decision, focusing on the AWOL issue.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the Court of Appeals erred in overlooking the matter of absence without official leave (AWOL). The Court stated:

“A scrutiny of the memorandum-notice, on its face, unambiguously reveals that the termination was based not on the matter of nepotism and private respondents’ failure to assume office but on something that is as significant as the two preceding issues – the matter of unauthorized absences which resulted to their names being dropped from the rolls.”

The Court further cited Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 38, Series of 1993, which states that employees absent for at least 30 days without approved leave may be dropped from the service without prior notice.

Practical Implications: What Does This Mean for Employees and Employers?

This case serves as a reminder that while security of tenure is a fundamental right, it is not a shield against all forms of termination. Employees have a responsibility to comply with work requirements, including reporting for duty and seeking approval for absences.

For employers, particularly in the government sector, this case provides a clear framework for dealing with AWOL employees. It confirms the right to drop employees from the rolls without prior notice if they meet the 30-day AWOL threshold, as per CSC Memorandum Circular No. 38, Series of 1993. However, employers should still ensure that they have proper documentation of the employee’s absences and that the employee was given an opportunity to explain their absence before being dropped from the rolls.

Key Lessons

• Comply with Attendance Requirements: Employees must adhere to attendance policies and seek approval for absences.
• Document Absences: Employers should meticulously document employee absences.
• Understand AWOL Policies: Both employees and employers should be familiar with CSC Memorandum Circular No. 38, Series of 1993.
• Opportunity to Explain: While prior notice isn’t required for AWOL terminations, offering an opportunity to explain absences is advisable.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is Absence Without Leave (AWOL)?

A: AWOL refers to being absent from work without obtaining the necessary approval or authorization from your employer.

Q: How many days of AWOL can lead to termination?

A: According to Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 38, Series of 1993, being absent for at least 30 days without approved leave can lead to being dropped from the rolls.

Q: Do I need to be notified before being terminated for AWOL?

A: The CSC circular specifies that prior notice is not required for dropping an employee from the rolls due to AWOL.

Q: Can I be re-employed in the government after being dropped from the rolls for AWOL?

A: Yes, being dropped from the rolls for AWOL is without prejudice to your re-appointment, subject to Civil Service laws, rules, and regulations.

Q: What should I do if I have a valid reason for being absent?

A: Immediately communicate with your employer and provide documentation to support your absence. Ensure that you comply with the company’s leave application procedures.

Q: Is there a difference between being terminated for cause and being dropped from the rolls for AWOL?

A: Yes. Termination for cause is disciplinary in nature and results from misconduct, while being dropped from the rolls for AWOL is non-disciplinary and stems from prolonged unauthorized absence.

ASG Law specializes in labor law and civil service regulations. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.