In Jaucian v. Wycoco, the Supreme Court clarified the extent of the appointing authority’s discretion in re-employing a government employee who was previously dropped from the rolls for being Absent Without Official Leave (AWOL). The Court held that the appointing authority has the power to determine the nature of the new appointment, even if it differs from the previous one. This ruling reinforces the principle that re-employment is a new appointment subject to the discretion of the appointing authority, not a mere reinstatement to the former position.

From Permanent to Coterminous: When AWOL Affects Security of Tenure

Ronald C. Jaucian, formerly an Intelligence Agent I at the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), found himself in a legal battle after being dropped from the rolls due to frequent absences without leave. Despite initially holding a permanent position, his employment history was marred by repeated warnings and orders related to his failure to comply with civil service rules on attendance. After being dropped from the rolls, Jaucian sought reconsideration, which was initially approved. However, the subsequent re-employment papers offered him a coterminous status, which he contested, leading to a dispute that reached the Supreme Court. The central legal question revolves around whether the NBI Director’s decision to re-employ Jaucian on a coterminous basis was a valid exercise of appointing authority or an illegal demotion violating his right to security of tenure.

The case originated from Jaucian’s persistent failure to adhere to attendance regulations, resulting in multiple warnings and salary withholdings. Records indicated a pattern of irregular entries in his Daily Time Records (DTRs) and Biometric Time Card. As a consequence, NBI Director Federico M. Opinion, Jr. issued a Notice/Order of Separation, effectively dropping Jaucian from the rolls for being AWOL since May 12, 2000, citing Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 12 (Series of 1994). This circular provides that an employee continuously absent without approved leave for at least thirty calendar days shall be dropped from the rolls without prior notice. The said circular provides:

An officer or employee who is continuously absent without approved leave (AWOL) for at least thirty (30) calendar days shall be separated from the service or dropped from the rolls without prior notice. He shall however be informed of his separation from the service not later than five (5) days from its effectivity which shall be sent to the address appearing on his 201 files

Jaucian contested this decision, asserting that he had reported for work and that the nature of his assignments prevented him from complying with the biometric time and attendance system. He submitted a list of assignments and accomplishments, along with a certification from his superior attesting to his regular attendance. Director Opinion initially granted Jaucian’s request for reconsideration. However, he later issued re-employment papers for the same position but on a coterminous status. Jaucian’s refusal to accept this new appointment led to further complications, culminating in his appeal to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), which initially ruled in his favor, ordering his reinstatement with back salaries.

The NBI then sought relief from the Court of Appeals, which reversed the CSC’s ruling, upholding the validity of Jaucian’s coterminous appointment. This prompted Jaucian to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court emphasized that Jaucian’s separation from the service was due to his non-compliance with attendance rules, triggering the AWOL provision of Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 12. The court reiterated that when Director Opinion approved Jaucian’s reconsideration, Jaucian had already been dropped from the rolls, making re-employment papers necessary for his return to service.

The Supreme Court underscored the appointing authority’s discretion in determining the nature of the re-employment. It cited the principle that the power of appointment involves considerations of wisdom that only the appointing authority can decide. The CSC, therefore, cannot curtail or diminish the exercise of discretion of the appointing power on the nature or kind of appointment to be extended. As such, it emphasized that:

The power of appointment involves considerations of wisdom which only the appointing authority can decide. The CSC is not authorized to curtail or diminish the exercise of discretion of the appointing power on the nature or kind of appointment to be extended.

The Court found that the CSC exceeded its authority by ignoring Director Opinion’s appointment of Jaucian on a coterminous basis. Since Jaucian was no longer employed at the time of the coterminous appointment, he could not claim illegal dismissal or a downgraded employment status. He was not entitled to backwages because his separation was due to his AWOL status, and he did not appeal the CSC’s decision denying him backwages.

The court acknowledged the established principle that an appointment is essentially discretionary. In this case, the discretion was exercised when the NBI Director chose to rehire Jaucian on a coterminous basis. This decision was within the bounds of the director’s authority. It was not subject to interference from the Civil Service Commission, which attempted to mandate a permanent appointment. This approach contrasts with the CSC’s attempt to overrule the appointing authority’s decision, which the Supreme Court deemed an overreach of its powers.

In essence, this case serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to civil service rules and regulations, especially concerning attendance. It also clarifies the extent of the appointing authority’s power to determine the nature of employment when re-hiring individuals previously separated from service due to AWOL or similar causes. The ruling reinforces the principle that the power to appoint carries with it the discretion to define the terms of that appointment, provided it does not contravene existing laws or regulations. The decision in Jaucian v. Wycoco provides a clear framework for understanding the dynamics between employee conduct, administrative procedures, and the scope of appointing authority within the Philippine civil service system.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the NBI Director’s decision to re-employ Ronald Jaucian on a coterminous basis, after he was dropped from the rolls for being AWOL, was a valid exercise of appointing authority. This hinged on whether it violated his right to security of tenure.
What does AWOL mean in this context?	AWOL stands for Absent Without Official Leave. It refers to a situation where an employee is continuously absent from work without obtaining the necessary approval or authorization from their employer.
What is a coterminous appointment?	A coterminous appointment is a type of employment where the tenure of the employee is dependent on the appointing authority’s discretion or a specific project’s duration. This means the employment ends when the appointing authority decides or when the project is completed.
Why was Jaucian dropped from the rolls?	Jaucian was dropped from the rolls due to his continuous absences without approved leave (AWOL) for more than 30 days. This action was in accordance with Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 12 (Series of 1994).
What did the Civil Service Commission (CSC) initially rule?	The CSC initially ruled in favor of Jaucian, ordering his reinstatement to his former position as Intelligence Agent I with payment of back salaries. However, this decision was later reversed by the Court of Appeals.
What was the basis for the Court of Appeals’ decision?	The Court of Appeals reversed the CSC’s ruling. It upheld the validity of Jaucian’s coterminous appointment, stating that the NBI Director had the discretion to determine the nature of the re-employment.
Did the Supreme Court agree with the Court of Appeals?	Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. It ruled that the NBI Director’s decision to re-employ Jaucian on a coterminous basis was a valid exercise of appointing authority.
Was Jaucian entitled to backwages?	No, Jaucian was not entitled to backwages. The Supreme Court reasoned that his separation was due to his AWOL status, and he did not appeal the CSC’s decision denying him backwages.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Jaucian v. Wycoco clarifies the scope of the appointing authority’s discretion in re-employing individuals who have been dropped from the rolls due to AWOL. This ruling reinforces the importance of adhering to civil service rules and regulations and highlights the balance between employee rights and administrative prerogatives within the Philippine civil service system.

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: Ronald C. Jaucian, PETITIONER, VS. GEN. REYNALDO G. WYCOCO, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENTS., G.R. No. 164710, September 28, 2007