ASG Law

Tag: 2017 RACCS

  • Absence Without Official Leave: Upholding Public Accountability in the Philippine Judiciary

    In a recent resolution, the Supreme Court addressed the case of Jaime M. Jasmin, a Legal Researcher II, who was absent without official leave (AWOL) for an extended period. The Court upheld the Judicial Integrity Board’s (JIB) recommendation to drop Jasmin from the rolls, emphasizing that prolonged AWOL disrupts public service and fails to meet the high standards of accountability expected of government employees. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to leave policies and maintaining consistent work attendance within the Philippine judiciary.

    When Absence Undermines Service: The Case of Jaime Jasmin

    This case revolves around Jaime M. Jasmin, a Legal Researcher II at the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Tanjay City, Negros Oriental. Presiding Judge Roderick A. Maxino initially filed an administrative complaint against Jasmin for alleged usurpation of authority, which was later dismissed. Following the dismissal, Jasmin requested the Court to process his back salaries, release benefits, and allow him to return to work, citing medical reasons. However, it was discovered that Jasmin had been absent without official leave since August 2018, prompting the JIB to recommend that he be dropped from the rolls.

    The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether to grant Jasmin’s request to return to work, considering his prolonged absence. The Court clarified that Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, which governs the discipline of judiciary members, officials, and employees, does not apply to cases of AWOL. Instead, the Court relied on the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in Civil Service (RACCS) to address the matter. This distinction is crucial because the procedure for dropping an employee from the rolls due to AWOL is administrative rather than disciplinary in nature. According to the Court, Jasmin’s case falls squarely within the purview of the 2017 RACCS.

    Section 107 (a)(1) of the 2017 RACCS explicitly addresses situations of absence without approved leave, stating:

    Section 107. Grounds and Procedure for Dropping from the Rolls. Officers and employees who are absent without approved leave, have unsatisfactory or poor performance, or have shown to be physically or mentally unfit to perform their duties may be dropped from the rolls within thirty (30) days from the time a ground therefor arises subject to the following procedures:

    a. Absence Without Approved Leave

    1. An official or employee who is continuously absent without official leave (AWOL) for at least thirty (30) working days may be dropped from the rolls without prior notice which shall take effect immediately.

    Further emphasizing the non-disciplinary nature of dropping from the rolls, Section 110 of the same rules provides:

    Section 110. Dropping From the Rolls; Non-disciplinary in Nature. This mode of separation from the service for unauthorized absences or unsatisfactory or poor performance or physical or mental disorder is non-disciplinary in nature and shall not result in the forfeiture of any benefit on the part of the official or employee or in disqualification from reemployment in the government.

    The Court highlighted that Jasmin’s prolonged absence disrupted the operations of his office and demonstrated a failure to adhere to the high standards of public accountability expected of government employees. Even though the Court’s Medical Services had approved Jasmin’s leave of absence for July 2018, his continued absence without official leave from August 2018 onward justified the JIB’s recommendation to drop him from the rolls. The Court also noted that Jasmin was not prevented from reporting to work during the pendency of the administrative complaint against him. This underscored the voluntary nature of his prolonged absence.

    The Supreme Court underscored the importance of public service and accountability. Public servants are expected to be present and fulfill their duties, and prolonged, unauthorized absences cannot be tolerated. By dropping Jasmin from the rolls, the Court sent a clear message about the consequences of neglecting these responsibilities. It also affirmed the JIB’s role in upholding ethical standards within the judiciary. Even with the dismissal of the initial administrative complaint, the AWOL warranted administrative action. The Court explicitly stated that while Jasmin was being dropped from the rolls, he was still entitled to receive the benefits he had earned until July 31, 2018, and he was not disqualified from future reemployment in the government. This distinction highlights the non-disciplinary nature of the action, focusing instead on the need for an efficient and accountable public service.

    The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a reminder to all government employees about the importance of adhering to leave policies and maintaining consistent work attendance. It reinforces the principle that public service requires dedication and accountability, and that prolonged absences without official leave can have serious consequences. The decision also clarifies the application of the 2017 RACCS in cases of AWOL, distinguishing it from disciplinary actions governed by Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. This clarification provides guidance for future administrative matters involving similar circumstances.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Jaime M. Jasmin, a Legal Researcher II, should be allowed to return to work after being absent without official leave (AWOL) for an extended period. The Supreme Court had to determine if his prolonged absence justified dropping him from the rolls.
    What does AWOL mean? AWOL stands for “absent without official leave.” It refers to a situation where an employee is absent from work without obtaining the necessary approval or authorization from their employer.
    What is the 2017 RACCS? The 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in Civil Service (RACCS) are the rules governing administrative cases involving civil servants in the Philippines. It outlines the procedures and grounds for disciplinary and administrative actions, including dropping from the rolls for AWOL.
    Why was Jasmin dropped from the rolls? Jasmin was dropped from the rolls because he was continuously absent without official leave from August 2018 up to the present. This prolonged absence violated the 2017 RACCS, which allows for the dropping of employees who are AWOL for at least 30 working days.
    Is being dropped from the rolls a disciplinary action? No, being dropped from the rolls due to AWOL is considered a non-disciplinary action. This means that it does not result in the forfeiture of benefits or disqualification from reemployment in the government.
    Was Jasmin entitled to any benefits? Yes, Jasmin was still qualified to receive the benefits he may be entitled to under existing laws until July 31, 2018. This is because the dropping from the rolls was not a disciplinary action and did not result in the forfeiture of earned benefits.
    Was Jasmin disqualified from future employment? No, Jasmin was not disqualified from reemployment in the government. The dropping from the rolls due to AWOL is a non-disciplinary action and does not prevent him from seeking future employment opportunities in the public sector.
    What was the role of the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB)? The Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) investigated the matter and recommended that Jasmin be dropped from the rolls due to his prolonged absence without official leave. The Supreme Court adopted and approved the JIB’s findings and recommendation.

    The Supreme Court’s resolution in the case of Judge Roderick A. Maxino vs. Jaime M. Jasmin clarifies the consequences of unauthorized absences and underscores the importance of accountability in public service. By strictly enforcing administrative rules, the Court aims to maintain the integrity and efficiency of the Philippine judiciary, ensuring that public servants fulfill their duties diligently. It serves as a reminder that adherence to leave policies and consistent work attendance are essential for maintaining public trust and ensuring the effective delivery of justice.

    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: JUDGE RODERICK A. MAXINO VS. JAIME M. JASMIN, G.R. No. 68951, January 30, 2023

  • Understanding the Consequences of Non-Payment and Insubordination in Philippine Court Employment

    The Importance of Integrity and Compliance in Court Employment

    Santos v. Raymundo, et al., 866 Phil. 584 (2019)

    Imagine trusting someone with your hard-earned money, only to find yourself embroiled in a legal battle years later. This is the reality Maria Rosanna J. Santos faced when she lent money to court employees who failed to repay her, leading to a significant Supreme Court case that underscores the importance of integrity and compliance within the judiciary.

    In the case of Santos v. Raymundo, et al., the Supreme Court of the Philippines tackled the serious issues of non-payment of debts and insubordination by court employees. The central question was whether these actions warranted administrative penalties, and if so, what those penalties should be.

    Legal Context

    The Philippine legal system places a high value on the integrity and conduct of its court employees. The Code of Conduct for Court Personnel (CCCP) and the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (2017 RACCS) govern the behavior of these individuals. Under the 2017 RACCS, offenses are classified as grave, less grave, or light, each with corresponding penalties.

    A key provision relevant to this case is Section 50 of the 2017 RACCS, which states that contracting loans from persons with whom the office of the employee has business relations is a grave offense punishable by dismissal. Insubordination, on the other hand, is a less grave offense, punishable by suspension for the first offense and dismissal for the second.

    These rules are designed to maintain the integrity of the judiciary. Court employees are expected to exhibit the highest sense of honesty and integrity, not only in their official duties but also in their personal dealings. This expectation is crucial because the public’s trust in the judiciary is reflected in the conduct of its personnel.

    Case Breakdown

    Maria Rosanna J. Santos lent money to three court employees: Emma J. Raymundo, George F. Lucero, and Ronald P. Fajardo. Raymundo borrowed P100,000, Lucero P6,000, and Fajardo P4,500. When Santos tried to collect these debts, she faced not only non-payment but also verbal abuse from the respondents.

    Santos filed an administrative complaint against the three, leading to a formal investigation. During the investigation, Santos reached amicable settlements with Lucero and Fajardo, resulting in their cases being dismissed. However, Raymundo’s case continued due to her failure to comply with a Compromise Agreement to repay Santos.

    Raymundo’s non-compliance with the Compromise Agreement and her subsequent failure to submit required comments to the Court led to multiple penalties. Initially, she was reprimanded for conduct unbecoming of a court employee. Later, she received a 30-day suspension without pay for the same offense, and finally, a one-year suspension without pay for insubordination.

    The Supreme Court ultimately found Raymundo guilty of contracting loans from persons with whom her office had business relations and insubordination. The Court noted:

    “The act of contracting loans of money or other property from persons with whom the office of the employee has business relations is punishable by dismissal from the service under the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (2017 RACCS).”

    Another critical point was:

    “Raymundo exhibited defiance to the Court’s directives on more than one occasion… Therefore, as the OCA correctly concluded, Raymundo is also guilty of insubordination.”

    The Court imposed the penalty of dismissal from service on Raymundo, along with forfeiture of retirement benefits and perpetual disqualification from holding public office.

    Practical Implications

    This ruling sets a precedent for how the judiciary will handle cases of non-payment and insubordination by court employees. It emphasizes the seriousness with which the Supreme Court views breaches of integrity and compliance with its directives.

    For businesses and individuals dealing with court employees, this case serves as a cautionary tale. It is essential to be wary of engaging in financial transactions with individuals in positions of authority, especially within the judiciary, as such actions can lead to severe consequences.

    Key Lessons:

    • Court employees must maintain the highest standards of integrity in both their professional and personal dealings.
    • Non-payment of debts and insubordination are serious offenses that can lead to dismissal from service.
    • Compliance with court directives is non-negotiable, and failure to comply can result in severe penalties.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What is considered a grave offense under the 2017 RACCS?

    A grave offense under the 2017 RACCS includes serious dishonesty, gross neglect of duty, grave misconduct, and contracting loans from persons with whom the office of the employee has business relations, among others. These offenses are punishable by dismissal from service.

    Can court employees be disciplined for personal financial dealings?

    Yes, court employees can be disciplined for personal financial dealings, especially if those dealings involve non-payment of debts or transactions with individuals with whom their office has business relations.

    What are the penalties for insubordination by court employees?

    Insubordination is classified as a less grave offense under the 2017 RACCS. The penalty for the first offense is suspension for one month and one day to six months, and dismissal from service for the second offense.

    How can individuals protect themselves when lending money to court employees?

    Individuals should ensure that any financial transactions with court employees are well-documented and that they understand the potential risks involved. It may also be wise to consult legal advice before entering such transactions.

    What should court employees do to avoid disciplinary action?

    Court employees should adhere strictly to the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, ensuring they maintain high standards of integrity in all their dealings and promptly comply with any court directives.

    ASG Law specializes in employment law and administrative cases in the Philippines. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Dropping from the Rolls: Upholding Accountability in Public Service Through Removal for Unexcused Absences

    The Supreme Court’s decision in A.M. No. 17-12-135-MeTC underscores the importance of maintaining accountability and efficiency in public service. The Court affirmed the dropping from the rolls of a court stenographer who had been absent without official leave (AWOL) for an extended period. This ruling emphasizes that prolonged unauthorized absences disrupt the normal functions of the court and contravene a public servant’s duty to serve with responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, while reiterating that such separation is non-disciplinary, preserving the employee’s accrued benefits and re-employment eligibility.

    The Case of the Absent Stenographer: When Does Absence Lead to Removal?

    This administrative matter originated from a request to drop Mr. Arno Del Rosario, a Court Stenographer II, from the rolls due to his unauthorized absences. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) records indicated that Del Rosario had neither submitted his daily time records nor any leave applications since February 3, 2017. Furthermore, while an application for retirement was received, the necessary supporting documents were lacking. Consequently, his name was removed from the payroll in April 2017, although the Personnel Division still considered him an active employee. Presiding Judge Analie B. Oga-Brual then formally requested his removal or a declaration of vacancy for his position.

    The OCA, after review, recommended that Del Rosario be dropped from the rolls and his position declared vacant. However, the OCA clarified that Del Rosario remained eligible for benefits under existing laws and could be re-employed within the government. The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether Del Rosario should be dropped from the rolls due to his unexcused absences. The Court, aligning with the OCA’s findings, cited Section 107, Rule 20 of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (2017 RACCS), which outlines the grounds and procedures for dropping employees from the rolls due to prolonged unauthorized absences. This rule reflects the broader principle that public servants must fulfill their duties diligently.

    Section 107 of the 2017 RACCS states:

    Section 107. Grounds and Procedure for Dropping from the Rolls. Officers and employees who are absent without approved leave, x x x may be dropped from the rolls within thirty (30) days from the time a ground therefor arises subject to the following procedures:

    a. Absence Without Approved Leave

    1. An official or employee who is continuously absent without official leave (AWOL) for at least thirty (30) working days may be dropped from the rolls without prior notice which shall take effect immediately.

    He/she shall, however, have the right to appeal his/her separation within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the notice of separation which must be sent to his/her last known address.

    This provision aligns with Section 63, Rule XVI of the Omnibus Rules on Leave, as amended by Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 13, Series of 2007:

    Section 63. Effect of absences without approved leave. – An official or 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. x x x.

    The Court emphasized that Del Rosario’s absence without official leave since February 3, 2017, was undisputed. Such prolonged absence led to inefficiency in the public service by disrupting the court’s functions. This contravened the fundamental duty of a public servant. The Court has consistently held that public servants must uphold public accountability and maintain the public’s faith in the judiciary. By failing to report for work, Del Rosario neglected his duties and failed to meet the high standards of public accountability expected of government employees. In Re Dropping from the Rolls of Rowie A. Quimno, the Court had already stressed the importance of adherence to duty and responsibility in public service.

    In light of these considerations, the Court was compelled to drop Del Rosario from the rolls. The Court clarified that the action was non-disciplinary, meaning Del Rosario would not forfeit accrued benefits nor be disqualified from future government employment. Section 110 of the 2017 RACCS supports this clarification, ensuring that the separation does not result in the loss of benefits or future employment opportunities.

    The Supreme Court’s decision highlights the balance between maintaining public service standards and protecting employee rights. While unauthorized absences can lead to removal, the process is designed to be fair, preserving the employee’s entitlements and future prospects. This approach contrasts with disciplinary actions, which may involve penalties beyond mere removal from the rolls. The key distinction lies in the nature of the separation, where non-disciplinary actions focus on addressing operational inefficiencies caused by the absence, rather than punishing misconduct.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether a court stenographer should be dropped from the rolls due to continuous absence without official leave (AWOL). The Supreme Court had to determine if the employee’s actions warranted removal from service.
    What does it mean to be ‘dropped from the rolls’? Being ‘dropped from the rolls’ means an employee is removed from the official list of employees due to prolonged absence without approval or other administrative reasons. This action effectively terminates their employment.
    What is the minimum period of absence to be considered AWOL? According to the 2017 RACCS and the Omnibus Rules on Leave, an employee continuously absent without approved leave for at least thirty (30) working days is considered AWOL. This absence can lead to separation from service.
    Is being dropped from the rolls considered a disciplinary action? No, being dropped from the rolls due to AWOL, as in this case, is considered a non-disciplinary action. This means the employee’s separation doesn’t automatically result in forfeiture of benefits or disqualification from future government employment.
    What rights does an employee have when dropped from the rolls? An employee dropped from the rolls has the right to appeal the separation within fifteen (15) days from receiving the notice of separation. They are also typically entitled to receive any benefits accrued during their employment.
    Can an employee dropped from the rolls be re-employed in the government? Yes, since being dropped from the rolls in this context is a non-disciplinary action, the employee is generally still qualified for re-employment in the government. The separation doesn’t impose a ban on future employment opportunities.
    What is the basis for dropping an employee from the rolls due to AWOL? The basis is Section 107, Rule 20 of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RACCS) and Section 63, Rule XVI of the Omnibus Rules on Leave. These provisions authorize the dropping of employees who are AWOL for an extended period.
    What if the employee has filed for retirement but hasn’t completed the process? If an employee has filed for retirement but hasn’t submitted all necessary documents, they are still considered an active employee. If they are absent without leave, they can be dropped from the rolls regardless of the pending retirement application.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s resolution in the case of Mr. Arno D. Del Rosario reinforces the standards of conduct expected of public servants. While the decision underscores the repercussions of prolonged unauthorized absences, it also safeguards the rights and future prospects of the employee by clarifying that the separation is non-disciplinary in nature.

    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: DROPPING FROM THE ROLLS OF MR. ARNO D. DEL ROSARIO, A.M. No. 17-12-135-MeTC, April 16, 2018