In City Government of Makati City v. Civil Service Commission, the Supreme Court held that a government employee, suspended due to a non-bailable offense and subsequent detention, is not automatically dropped from the rolls for not filing a leave of absence if acquitted, particularly when the employer suspended her until the case’s termination. The decision emphasizes the employee’s right to reinstatement and back wages upon acquittal, reinforcing the constitutional protection afforded to labor. This ruling safeguards the security of tenure for civil servants facing criminal charges, clarifying the obligations of government employers in ensuring due process and equitable treatment. It balanced the need for an efficient bureaucracy with the rights and privileges of civil servants.

Kidnapped, Jailed, and then Fired? Unpacking Galzote’s Fight for Reinstatement

Eusebia Galzote, a clerk for the City Government of Makati, faced an unimaginable ordeal. Arrested without a warrant and detained for over three years for a crime she didn’t commit, her life took a drastic turn. Throughout her detention, she relied on the city government’s initial assurance that her suspension would last only until the final resolution of her criminal case. However, nearing vindication, she was unexpectedly dropped from the rolls without notice or a chance to explain her failure to file a formal leave of absence, a requirement belatedly raised by the city government. Upon her acquittal, she was denied reinstatement, leading her to seek recourse with the Civil Service Commission (CSC), which ordered her immediate reinstatement with back wages. This order was later upheld by the Court of Appeals.

The core issue was whether Galzote’s suspension until the final disposition of her case obligated the city government to reinstate her upon acquittal, and if her prolonged absence justified being dropped from the rolls despite the suspension. Petitioner argued that private respondent Galzote should be declared on AWOL, faulting her for failing to file an application for leave of absence as prescribed by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) Rules, specifically Secs. 20 and 35. However, the Court strongly disagreed and emphasized that Galzote’s case should not hinge on a strict interpretation of these rules. The Court explained that private respondent had been advised that she had been placed under suspension until the final disposition of her criminal case. The Court asserted that private respondent’s predicament was indeed recognized by the employer which lead her to forego reporting for work during the pendency of her criminal case without the needless exercise of strict formalities.

Building on this principle, the Court reasoned that private respondent’s failure to comply with strict formalities should not be detrimental to her rights and protection of the law. The City Government acted in recognizing her suspension and should at the very least bind it in good faith to allow her to return to work once her case was resolved and she was acquitted of criminal charges. Since she was incapacitated and suspended until her case concluded, and acquitted of criminal charges, she should be returned to her position, according to the Court.

Furthermore, the Court weighed the employer’s conduct of placing her under suspension, essentially telling private respondent not to report to work until her case concluded, and ruled that employer may not thereafter belatedly rely on her absence and failure to adhere to procedural formalities as grounds to dismiss her from employment. In justifying her employment dismissal, Petitioner cited her failure to apply for leave when Petitioner knew she was detained and unable to make the application! Private respondent’s request to lift the suspension and allow her to resume position was completely ignored.

Moreover, the Supreme Court tackled the issue of private respondent Galzote being denied due process in her employer’s process to drop her name from the rolls. Basic requirements of notice were clearly violated in this situation as the evidence demonstrated that she was arrested and immediately placed under inquest proceedings. This would show that no adequate notice or warning was ever delivered to her or to a known representative as the circumstances did not permit private respondent to report or provide prior advice for an excuse to not present herself to work. Also lacking in compliance was adequate due process for the process dropping her name in the roles as it was evident that such a notice was made to a private residence knowing she was not there but detained at the time.

Consequently, the Supreme Court denied the petition filed by the City Government of Makati and affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals, which upheld Resolution No. 960153 of the Civil Service Commission. The Supreme Court reiterated that a government employee, facing detention due to a non-bailable offense but later acquitted, has a right to be reinstated and receive back wages upon acquittal, especially when their employer initially suspended them until the case’s final resolution.

Officers and employees in the Civil Service shall be entitled to leave of absence, with or without pay, as may be provided by law and the rules and regulations of the Civil Service Commission in the interest of the service.

The resolution provides guidelines on leave and recognizes instances when an employee may be on “automatic leave” such as times when they are unjustly imprisoned and unable to go about fulfilling requirements.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central question was whether Eusebia Galzote, a government employee suspended due to detention, could be dropped from the rolls for not filing a leave of absence after being acquitted.
What did the Civil Service Commission rule?	The CSC ordered Galzote’s immediate reinstatement with back wages from the date she sought to resume her duties after her detention, finding merit in her claim that her suspension implied an automatic leave.
What was Makati City’s argument?	Makati City argued that Galzote was absent without leave (AWOL) and failed to file the necessary leave application as required by CSC rules, rejecting the notion of an automatic leave.
How did the Supreme Court rule?	The Supreme Court sided with Galzote, emphasizing that her initial suspension by the City Government excused her from needing to file a leave application, and ordered her reinstatement.
What is ‘AWOL’ and how does it relate to this case?	AWOL, or Absent Without Leave, refers to an employee’s absence from work without justifiable reason or notice to the employer; Makati City tried to classify Galzote as such, but the Court disagreed due to her detention and suspension.
What does this case say about ‘due process’?	The Supreme Court found that Makati City violated Galzote’s right to due process when they dropped her from the rolls without proper notice, particularly since they knew she was detained at the time.
What are the implications for government employees facing criminal charges?	This case underscores that government employees suspended due to criminal charges are entitled to reinstatement if acquitted, provided there is no separate administrative case against them.
Does this ruling create an ‘automatic leave’ for detained employees?	While not explicitly creating an ‘automatic leave,’ the ruling acknowledges that certain circumstances, like detention, may excuse an employee from filing a formal leave application.

In conclusion, this landmark decision reinforces the importance of security of tenure and due process rights for government employees facing legal challenges. It clarifies the responsibilities of government employers to act fairly and equitably when dealing with employees who are temporarily unable to perform their duties due to circumstances beyond their control.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: City Government of Makati City v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 131392, February 6, 2002