This case underscores the strict adherence to public accountability within the Philippine judiciary. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Mr. Gregorio B. Faraon, an Administrative Officer IV, for his prolonged unauthorized absence from the Regional Trial Court-Office of the Clerk of Court of Manila. This decision serves as a stern reminder to public servants of their duty to maintain consistent attendance and dedication to their responsibilities, highlighting the repercussions of neglecting these obligations.

Dereliction of Duty: When Silence Becomes Grounds for Dismissal

The case of Mr. Faraon originated from his failure to submit his Daily Time Records (DTRs) and Bundy Cards, effectively marking his absence without official leave (AWOL) from June 2004 onwards. Despite repeated directives from the Office of Administrative Services (OAS) of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) and warnings to explain his absences, Mr. Faraon remained unresponsive and failed to return to duty. This prompted the OCA to recommend his dismissal, a decision the Supreme Court ultimately upheld, reinforcing the principle that public office is a public trust and that any dereliction of duty can lead to severe consequences.

The legal framework for this decision is rooted in Section 63, Rule XVI of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations, as amended by Memorandum Circular No. 14, s. 1999. This provision explicitly states that an official or employee continuously absent without approved leave for at least thirty (30) working days shall be considered on AWOL and may be dropped from the rolls without prior notice. The Court emphasized that Mr. Faraon’s failure to submit his DTRs, coupled with his non-responsiveness to office communications, provided sufficient evidence of his AWOL status.

Moreover, the Court referenced Section 50, Rule XVI, of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations, as amended by Memorandum Circular No. 41, s. 1998, which addresses the effect of unauthorized leave, and states:

An official/employee who is absent without approved leave shall not be entitled to receive his salary corresponding to the period of his unauthorized leave of absence.

It also cites Section 63 of the same rules,

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. He shall, however, be informed at his address appearing on his 201 files or at last known written address, of his separation from the service, not later than five (5) days from its effectivity.

Building on this principle, the Supreme Court emphasized that public office demands accountability, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency. Absence without leave for an extended period constitutes conduct prejudicial to the best interest of public service. The Court stated that:

The conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice is circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. This Court cannot countenance any act or omission on the part of all those involved in the administration of justice which would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary.

The decision in this case aligns with established jurisprudence, citing Loyao, Jr. v. Manatad, which similarly affirmed dismissal as a consequence of AWOL. These rulings collectively underscore the judiciary’s commitment to maintaining public trust through strict enforcement of accountability among its employees.

Furthermore, this ruling has significant practical implications for all government employees. It clarifies that continuous absence without approved leave for a defined period is sufficient grounds for dismissal, highlighting the importance of adhering to attendance requirements and responding to official communications. The Supreme Court serves notice that the Judiciary demands unwavering commitment from its personnel, ensuring that they fulfill their duties responsibly and maintain public trust.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Mr. Faraon’s absence without official leave (AWOL) justified his dismissal from his position as Administrative Officer IV.
What is the consequence of being absent without leave (AWOL) in the Philippines?	Under the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations, being AWOL for at least 30 working days can lead to separation from service or being dropped from the rolls without prior notice.
What is the basis for the Supreme Court’s decision?	The Supreme Court based its decision on Section 63, Rule XVI of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations, as amended, which allows for the dismissal of employees who are continuously absent without approved leave for at least 30 days.
Was Mr. Faraon given a chance to explain his absence?	Yes, Mr. Faraon was sent multiple communications, including a telegram and a warning letter, requesting him to explain his absences. He failed to respond to any of these directives.
What does this case emphasize about public service?	This case emphasizes that public office is a public trust, requiring public officers to be accountable, responsible, loyal, and efficient in their duties.
What should government employees do to avoid a similar situation?	Government employees should diligently submit their Daily Time Records, promptly respond to official communications, and ensure that any absences are properly documented and approved.
What happens to the salary of an employee who is AWOL?	An employee who is absent without approved leave is not entitled to receive their salary for the period of their unauthorized absence.
Where was the respondent officially notified?	A copy of the Supreme Court’s decision will be served upon the respondent at his address appearing on his 201 files.

This case illustrates the Philippine Supreme Court’s commitment to upholding ethical standards within the judiciary. The stringent measures applied to Mr. Faraon’s case send a clear message about the importance of accountability and diligence in public service. The ruling reinforces the need for all civil servants to fulfill their responsibilities with dedication, integrity, and strict adherence to established rules and regulations.

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: RE: ABSENCE WITHOUT OFFICIAL LEAVE (AWOL) OF MR. GREGORIO B. FARAON, A.M. NO. 04-12-691-RTC, February 18, 2005