City Government of Makati v. Dagandan, Jr.

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 233111. * October 6, 2021.]

CITY GOVERNMENT OF MAKATI, petitioner, vs.FEDERICO F. DAGANDAN, JR., LICENSE INSPECTOR IV, BUSINESS PERMITS OFFICE, CITY OF MAKATI, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 6, 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 233111(City Government of Makati, petitioner v. Federico F. Dagandan, Jr., License Inspector IV, Business Permits Office, City of Makati, respondent).

Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the February 20, 2017 Decision 2 and July 20, 2017 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. SP No. 141120, which reversed the February 12, 2014 Decision 4 and April 29, 2014 Resolution 5 of the Civil Service Commission (CSC).

Antecedents

Federico F. Dagandan, Jr. (Federico) was employed by the City Government of Makati (petitioner) as a Utility Worker in the Personnel Division on March 15, 1982 and was later on promoted as Clerk II on July 1, 1989, in the same office. 6 He subsequently held the position of License Inspector IV at the Business Permits Office 7 of the City Government of Makati before he was dropped from the rolls in 2010.

On June 1, 2007, Federico suffered from Pontine Hemorrhage 8 complicated by Hypertension, which paralyzed half of his body and crippled him from the waist down. 9 Due to the degenerative nature of his illness, Federico's doctors could not declare him fit to return for work. Unable to work, Federico applied for leave of absence. CAIHTE

Petitioner alleged that Federico filed the following applications for leave of absence: 10

 

Date Filed	Period Covered
November 5, 2007	June 1, 2007 to February 13, 2008
September 24, 2008	February 14, 2008 to February 14, 2009
March 1, 2009	February 15, 2009 to April 15, 2009

 

Petitioner claimed that Federico failed to report for work at the end of his last approved leave ending on April 15, 2009, and did not file another application for leave of absence. On March 3, 2010, Vissia Marie O. Aldon, City Personnel Officer of the City Government of Makati, issued a letter directing Federico to appear before the office within 72 hours to explain his absence. 11 The said letter was sent to Federico's address indicated in his 201 file. However, the letter was returned to sender with notation "refused to receive." 12

On March 24, 2010, the Office of the City Administrator of Makati issued a Memorandum informing Federico that he was considered dropped from the roll of employees of the City Government of Makati due to his continuous leave of absence without official or approved leave since April 16, 2009. 13 The pertinent excerpt of the aforesaid memorandum reads, thus:

Please be informed that due to your continuous absences without official leave (AWOL) since April 16, 2009 up to this date, you are considered dropped from the roll of employees connected with the City Government of Makati, pursuant to Memorandum Circular No. 41, s. of 1998 of the Civil Service Commission.

In view of the urgent need for the services of the position you are presently occupying, we have no other recourse but to take the necessary steps for the discontinuance of your services, effective at the close of office hours today, March 24, 2010. 14

Federico alleged that his officemates and his supervisor at the Business Permits Office were aware of his debilitating illness and of his whereabouts. In fact, on March 24, 2010, a messenger from the Personnel Division went to Federico's residence to deliver the memorandum dropping him from the rolls of employees. 15

Federico claimed that he was surprised to be declared absent without leave since April 16, 2009, considering that he filed for an indefinite leave for the period of February 15, 2009 to February 15, 2010. Federico later on discovered that his leave application was tampered with and the dates applied were altered from February 15, 2009 to February 15, 2010, to February 15, 2009 to April 15, 2009. 16 Federico further bemoaned that petitioner, through the Personnel Division, was very much aware of his health condition and his present residence, yet, the office sent all vital correspondences to his previous address. 17

Aggrieved, Federico appealed the case before the CSC.

Ruling of the CSC

The CSC dismissed Federico's appeal and affirmed petitioner's memorandum dropping Federico from the roll of employees of the City Government of Makati and his removal from the payroll. The CSC declared that petitioner's memorandum was issued in accordance with Section 93 (a), Rule 19 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS), 18 which provides that an employee who is continuously absent without official leave (AWOL) for at least 30 days shall be separated from the service or dropped from the rolls without notice. 19 Likewise, Federico was not entitled to any salary because under Sec. 56 of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 41, Series of 1998 (CSC MC No. 41-1998), as amended, all absences of an employee in excess of his or her accumulated vacation or sick leave credits earned shall be without pay. Since Federico had exhausted all of his leave credits as of February 14, 2008, he was already on leave without pay as of February 15, 2008. 20 HEITAD

Undaunted, Federico elevated the case before the CA via Rule 43 of the Rules of Court asserting that the CSC committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming petitioner's memorandum dropping him from the rolls for incurring absences without official leave.

Ruling of the CA

The CA granted Federico's petition and ordered his reinstatement to his former position or a position of equivalent rank and compensation in the roll of employees in the City Government of Makati. Hinging on the ruling of City Government of Makati v. Civil Service Commission, 21 the CA held that the CSC policy on absences allows absences even without prior leave such as in case of illness of the employee or of any of his or her family members. The CA ruled that an illness is considered a force majeure and that an employee is required only to notify the employer of his or her condition, as what Federico had done. Considering that Federico's absence was due to his physical condition and not due to his refusal to report for work, the CA held that his case falls under the exceptional circumstances in which automatic leave of absence is allowed. 22

The fallo of the now assailed CA decision reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review is hereby GRANTED. The Decision and [Resolution] of the Civil Service Commission dated February 12, 2014 and April [29], 2014, respectively are REVERSED. The petitioner Federico F. Dagandan is hereby REINSTATED to his former position as License Inspector IV or a position of equivalent rank and compensation in the roll of employees of the City Government of Makati.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 23

Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the CA decision, however, its motion was denied through a Resolution dated July 20, 2017.

Not in conformity with the CA ruling, petitioner filed the instant petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the decision of the CA.

Issue

WHETHER THE CA GRAVELY ERRED IN DECLARING THAT FEDERICO WAS IMPROPERLY DROPPED FROM THE ROLL OF EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF MAKATI.

In its petition, petitioner asseverates that due process was observed in dropping Federico from the rolls. Petitioner claims that Federico was dropped from the rolls in accordance with Sec. 63 of CSC MC No. 41-1998 and Sec. 93 (a) (1) of the RRACCS, which provide that an employee who is continuously absent for at least 30 days shall be considered on AWOL and shall be dropped from the rolls without prior notice. 24 Moreover, under Sec. 62 of the said CSC Memorandum Circular, an employee who is on leave without pay and fails to report for work after one (1) year shall be automatically separated from the service. 25

In his comment and opposition, Federico contends that he cannot be declared on AWOL from April 16, 2009 to March 24, 2010, because he filed a leave application for the period February 15, 2009 to February 15, 2010. However, his leave application was visibly tampered with and the date applied for sick leave was altered from the original February 15, 2009 to February 15, 2010, to February 15, 2009 to April 15, 2009. 26 Federico bewails that his dismissal lacks basis and that he was deprived of due process.

Ruling of the Court

The instant petition is meritorious.

Parameters of Rule 45

Petitioner raises both questions of law and fact. The Court is not a trier of facts and is not into re-examination and re-evaluation of testimonial and documentary evidence on record. 27 The Court's review of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to reviews of questions of law, unless the following acknowledged exceptions occur:

(a) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures;

(b) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;

(c) when there is a grave abuse of discretion;

(d) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;

(e) when the findings of fact are conflicting;

(f) when the CA, in making its findings, went beyond the issue of the case and the same is contrary to the admission of both appellant and appellee;

(g) when the findings of the CA are contrary to those of the trial court;

(h) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; TIADCc

(i) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents;

(j) when the findings of fact of the CA is premised on the supposed absence of evidence but is contradicted by the evidence on record; and

(k) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. 28

In the present case, the findings of fact of the CSC and the CA are contradictory. Moreover, there are certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties that were manifestly overlooked by the CA which, if considered, would justify a different conclusion. As such, the Court deems it necessary to recalibrate and reassess the facts of this case for its proper and equitable resolution.

The RRACCS is not

In its decision, the CSC relied on Sec. 93 (a), Rule 19 29 of the RRACCS (CSC Resolution No. 1101502 dated November 8, 2011) to justify the dropping of Federico from the roll of employees of the City Government of Makati. Notably, the RRACCS, which took effect on December 13, 2011, is not applicable in this case since the dismissal of Federico occurred on March 24, 2010. Sec. 93 (a), Rule 19 of the RRACCS, however, is closely analogous to the prevailing rules at that time, namely: (a) Sec. 63 of CSC MC No. 41-1998 (as amended by Sec. 63 of CSC MC No. 14-1999); and (b) Sec. 2, Rule XII of CSC MC No. 15-1999, amending CSC MC No. 40-1998.

Sec. 63 of CSC MC No. 41-1998, as amended by Sec. 63 of CSC MC No. 14-1999, reads as follows:

Sec. 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. He shall, however, be informed, at his address appearing on his 201 files OR AT HIS LAST KNOWN WRITTEN ADDRESS, of his separation from the service, not later than five (5) days from its effectivity.

If the number of unauthorized absences incurred is less than thirty (30) WORKING days, a written Return-to-Work Order shall be served to him at his last known WRITTEN address on record. Failure on his part to report [for] work within the period stated in the order shall be a valid ground to drop him from the rolls.

Sec. 2, Rule XII of CSC MC No. 15-1999, amending CSC MC No. 40-1998, states:

RULE XII

Section 2. Dropping from the Rolls. — Officers and employees who are either habitually absent or have unsatisfactory or poor performance or have shown to be physically and mentally unfit to perform their duties may be dropped from the rolls subject to the following procedures. SDAaTC

a. An officer or employee who is continuously absent without approved leave (AWOL) for at least thirty (30) WORKING 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 OR TO HIS LAST KNOWN ADDRESS;

b. If the number of unauthorized absences incurred is less than thirty (3) n WORKING days, a written Return-to-Work order shall be served on the official or employee at his last known address on record. Failure on his part to report for work within the period stated in the order shall be a valid ground to drop him from the rolls. (underscoring supplied)

From the foregoing provisions, an employee may be automatically dismissed from the service and dropped from the rolls without prior notice if he or she is continuously absent without approved leave for at least 30 working days, for the following reasons: habitual absence; poor or unsatisfactory performance; or, physical or mental unfitness to perform duties.

In this case, it is undisputed that Federico applied for additional sick/indefinite leave. The parties, however, claim different durations of the subject leave application. Petitioner asserts that Federico had been continuously absent without leave for more than 30 working days since the approved leave was only from February 15, 2009 until April 15, 2009. On the other hand, Federico contends that he cannot be declared absent without approved leave as of April 16, 2009, since he filed an application for sick leave for the period of February 15, 2009 to February 15, 2010. The form was clean, the entries were typewritten, and without any erasures. Federico avers that only later on did he discover that the leave form was allegedly tampered with.

Now, the crucial issue is to determine whether Federico was indeed absent without approved leave starting April 16, 2009, and thus, dismissible, under Sec. 63 of CSC MC No. 41-1998, as amended.

Upon examination of Federico's contested application for leave, a line was drawn across the typewritten date February 15, 2010, and the date April 15, 2009, was handwritten above it. Noticeably, this allegation of "tampering" of dates in the subject application for leave was not refuted by petitioner nor threshed out by the CSC. However, evident on the "Approved for" portion of the subject leave form was the handwritten note: "60 days LV [without] pay Feb. 15/09-Apr. 15/09." 30 As such, contrary to Federico's allegations of tampering, the handwritten date just signifies that Federico's application for one-year leave was not approved and only 60 days leave without pay were extended to him by petitioner.

However, it has not escaped the attention of the Court that petitioner failed to duly notify Federico that his application for one-year leave was not fully approved. This violates the basic precepts of fairness and due process.

Sec. 1, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order (E.O.) No. 292, specifically provides that: "no officer or employee in the civil service shall be removed or suspended except for cause as provided by law and after due process." This is in obeisance with Sec. 2 (3), Article IX (B) of the Constitution, which mandates that no officer or employee of the civil service shall be removed or suspended, except for cause provided by law. The right to due process encompasses both substantive due process and procedural due process. 31 Substantive due process requires than an officer or employee may only be dismissed from the service for a valid cause. Whereas, procedural due process requires that the dismissal shall be done after due notice. 32 EcTCAD

The CSC policy on absences is silent on the notification of the employee as regards the approval or disapproval of his or her application for leave. However, in line with the constitutionally enshrined principle of due process, an employee should be duly notified of the status of his or her application of sick/indefinite leave, whether it was approved, disapproved or partially approved, more so when it would result injustice for the said employee.

The records are devoid of any allegation or document showing that Federico was indeed informed that his application for leave was only partially granted by petitioner. In fact, petitioner waited for almost a year after April 16, 2009, before sending Federico a 72-hour Return-to-Work Notice dated March 3, 2010. As such, Federico cannot be faulted for assuming that his application for leave from February 15, 2009 to February 15, 2010, due to his illness, was approved.

For lack of due notice to Federico, the application for leave from February 15, 2009 until February 15, 2010, shall be binding upon petitioner. Sec. 63 of CSC MC No. 41-1998, provides that an employee who is continuously absent without approved leave for at least 30 working days shall be separated from the service or dropped from the rolls without prior notice. When petitioner issued the notice of dismissal from the service on March 24, 2010, Federico had not yet incurred 30 working days of absence without approved leave. From February 16, 2010 to March 24, 2010, only 27 WORKING DAYS of leave without pay were incurred by Federico. As such, Sec. 63 of CSC MC No. 41-1998, as amended, was not a proper basis in dropping Federico from the rolls.

Federico may be dropped

Even if Federico cannot be dropped from the rolls under Sec. 63 of CSC MC No. 41-1998, as amended, he may still be validly dropped from the rolls due to his failure to report for duty after the expiration of his approved leave ending February 15, 2010, which exceeded the one-year leave without pay limit under Secs. 57 and 62 of CSC MC No. 41-1998, that specifically provides that:

Section 57. Limit of leave without pay. — Leave without pay not exceeding one year may be granted, in addition to the vacation and/or sick leave earned. Leave without pay in excess of one month shall require the clearance of the proper head of department or agency.

xxx xxx xxx

Section 62. Effect of failure to report for duty after expiration of one year leave. — If an official or an employee who is on leave without pay pursuant to Section 57 hereof, fails to report for work at the expiration of one year from the date of such leave, he shall be considered automatically separated from the service.

Herein petitioner asserts that Federico had exhausted his leave credits by February 14, 2008, and that his subsequent leaves were already without pay. Petitioner further contends that by March 24, 2010, Federico had incurred more than two (2) years of leave without pay, thus, his automatic dismissal from the service is justified under the foregoing CSC Memorandum Circular.

We concur.

Secs. 57 and 62 of CSC MC No. 41-1998, clearly and specifically provide that leave without pay must not exceed one year; and if an employee fails to report for duty after the expiration of the one-year leave without pay, he or she shall be considered automatically separated from the service. HSAcaE

As a government employee, Federico ought to have known that continuous absence without approved leave after the expiry of his approved one-year leave without pay would automatically dismiss him from the service. 33

Federico claims that he should have been given special consideration due to his illness, more so that his employer is aware of his condition. Contrary to Federico's allegation, petitioner has accorded Federico due process and special consideration by allowing him to be on indefinite leave for more than two years without pay on account of his illness. In fact, upon the expiry of his sick leave ending February 15, 2010, petitioner extended him a grace period of 27 working days before he was dropped from the rolls. Federico had the opportunity to request further extension of his leave, subject to the sound discretion and prerogative of petitioner. However, Federico failed to offer any justifiable reason for his failure to ask for an extension of his sick/indefinite leave. He even admitted that his wife is also an employee of the City Government of Makati. 34 Thus, even if he was physically unable to file the application for leave, he still had a way of informing petitioner of his current physical state and of his request for extension of leave.

A position cannot be left indefinitely vacant for an employee who does not manifest his interest to return to work or the possibility of his recovering from a debilitating illness. The government cannot be left in the lurch. Public service should not be made to suffer if a position is left vacant by an absentee employee for an indefinite period of time. Since public office is a public trust, every government employee is bound to act primarily for the benefit of the public. 35 As such, the Court has to take into account the totality of the circumstances of the case in order to arrive at the most equitable resolution of the case thereby striking a balance between the welfare of an employee vis-à-vis the exigency of the service without sacrificing the welfare of the public office.

In the instant case, Federico was only 52 years old when he was dropped from the rolls on March 24, 2010. 36 In his Comment to the present petition dated May 19, 2018, Federico admits to being permanently paralyzed from the waist down, and even attached a picture of him sitting on a wheelchair. 37 Apparently, his illness has rendered him permanently disabled and it is highly improbable for him to be able to return for work. Again, while the Court sympathizes with Federico, it is prejudicial to the public service to allow him to be on indefinite leave without pay until he reaches retirement age. This is no doubt antithetical to the interests of public office. His separation from the service by being dropped from the rolls is just the fulfillment of duty by the City Government of Makati to serve the public with utmost responsibility and efficiency. 38

The issue on prolonged absences due to an illness has been effectively and squarely addressed under Sec. 93 (c), Rule 19 of the RRACCS, which provides that "an officer or employee who is continuously absent for more than one (1) year by reason of illness may be declared physically unfit to perform his/her duties and the head of office in [the] exercise of his/her sound judgment may consequently drop him/her from the rolls." The amendment of the CSC rules shows the paramount importance of efficient and effective public service, part of which is the prevention of a vacuum or indefinite vacancies in the public office.

In view of the foregoing, the dropping of Federico from the rolls is valid pursuant to Sec. 62, in relation to Sec. 57, of CSC MC No. 41-1998, as amended.

The CA's reliance on the

In its assailed decision, the CA reversed the CSC decision and held that Federico's illness is an exceptional impediment which allows him to be absent even without approved prior leave. The CA had primarily hinged its decision on the ruling of the Court in City Government of Makati v. Civil Service Commission. 39 However, the facts, circumstances and doctrines in the aforesaid case do not find application in the instant case. HESIcT

In City Government of Makati City v. Civil Service Commission, 40 Eusebia Galzote (Galzote) was a clerk of the City Government of Makati. She was arrested and detained for more than three (3) years for a crime she did not commit. During her detention, the City Government of Makati issued a memorandum suspending Galzote from the service until the disposition of her case. On her third year of detention, she was dropped from the rolls for having been absent from work for more than one (1) year without official leave. The Court declared void Galzote's dismissal from the service, primarily because the City Government of Makati was estopped from repudiating its prior memorandum issued to Galzote suspending her until the final disposition of her case. As such, despite failing to file a leave of absence and having been absent for more than three (3) years, the Court declared that Galzote cannot be declared on AWOL and cannot be validly dropped from the service based on the principle of estoppel.

In the same jurisprudence, the Court espoused the principle of automatic leave of absence. The Court declared that in exceptional circumstances, the CSC rules allow absences without prior approved leave. Automatic leave of absence is deemed a significant part of the authority of a government agency to drop its employee from the rolls. The Court ratiocinated in this manner, viz.:

Section 20 of the CSC Rules allows absences even without prior approved leave, e.g., in case of illness. Thus, "[l]eave of absence for any reason other than illness of an official or employee or any member of his immediate family must be contingent upon the needs of the service. Hence, the grant of vacation leave shall be at the discretion of the head of department/agency." Obviously, illness cannot be scheduled and is beyond the control of the absent employee so that contingency upon the needs of the service would be irrelevant. It is enough that the employer be informed of the absent employee's illness, which information is the effective substitute for a prior leave application. But situations of illness are not the only instances of force majeure; other events beyond the control of the employee may also force him to be absent from work, such as when the employee himself is kidnapped or arrested and detained for alleged crimes. It is the latter cases, akin to predicaments of illness, that the CSC sought to address in interpreting the CSC rules on leave of absence as including or contemplating an automatic leave of absence. In these items of force majeure, the employee is excused from filing an application for leave of absence provided that he informs the employer of the unfortunate event underlying his absence.

In the instant case, we believe that private respondent has sufficiently informed petitioner City Government of her predicament for which no logical purpose arises for a prior leave of application. Significantly, the rule on automatic leave of absence is part and parcel of the authority to drop employees from the rolls under Sec. 35 or Sec. 63 of the CSC Rules for it tempers the exercise of such authority where the absences are beyond the control of the concerned employee. As explained by CSC —

Dropping from the rolls of an employee who fails to file an application for leave during her absence is a non-disciplinary measure provided for under Section 35, Rule XVI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 x x x Be it noted that the main concept of "dropping from the rolls" is the refusal of an employee to report for work or to go on absence without official leave (AWOL) despite the employer's notice to report. Such refusal to be a ground therefor is, of course, anchored on the fact that there is no other impediment on the part of the employee concerned which would prevent him from filing said leave application. 41 (emphases and underscoring supplied)

The foregoing case primarily pertains to the exception from filing an application for leave when there are legal or physical impediments that prevent an employee from doing so, i.e., force majeure, detention in jail, and illnesses.

In Federico's case, it is apparent that his illness is not an impediment in filing the necessary application for leave. From the onset of his illness, he had been continuously filing an application for leave, the last application being the subject matter of this case. Even if there was a valid impediment on the part of Federico to file the necessary application for extension of leave, petitioner had the discretion and prerogative to deny the additional leave since Federico had exhausted more than the one-year leave without pay limit under the CSC rules. The application for sick leave is not a matter of right and the approval thereof ceases to be ministerial in cases where the employee has been on leave without pay, in excess of the one-year leave without pay limit allowed by the CSC rules. caITAC

Indubitably, the CA's reliance on the case of City Government of Makati v. Civil Service Commission is misplaced. The CA gravely erred in reversing the CSC decision and reinstating Federico in the roll of employees based on the principle of automatic leave of absence.

Prescinding from the foregoing, Federico's failure to report for work after the expiration of his one-year leave without pay justifies his automatic separation from the service or dropping from the roll of employees of the City Government of Makati pursuant to Sec. 62 of CSC MC No. 41-1998, as amended. It bears stressing that Federico's dropping from the rolls is non-disciplinary in nature and does not result in the forfeiture of his benefits nor disqualifies him from reemployment in the Government. 42

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The February 20, 2017 Decision and July 20, 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 141120, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the February 12, 2014 Decision and April 29, 2014 Resolution of the Civil Service Commission are hereby REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

* Part of the Supreme Court Decongestion Program.

1.Rollo, pp. 9-24.

2.Id. at 29-39; penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser with Associate Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Renato C. Francisco, concurring.

3.Id. at 26-27.

4.Id. at 40-44.

5.Id. at 123-125.

6.Id. at 126.

7.Id.

8. Intercranial or cerebral hemorrhage/bleeding commonly due to long standing poorly-controlled chronic hypertension. https://radiopaedia.org/articles/pontine-haemorrhage (visited on September 15, 2021).

9.Rollo, pp. 199-201.

10.Id. at 30.

11.Id. at 216.

12.Id. at 41-A.

13.Id. at 127.

14.Id.

15.Id. at 248.

16.Id. at 239.

17.Id. at 249.

18. CSC Resolution No. 1101502 dated November 8, 2011.

19.Rollo, pp. 42-43.

20.Id. at 43.

21. 426 Phil. 631 (2002).

22.Rollo, pp. 36-38.

23.Id. at 38.

24.Id. at 15-17.

25.Id. at 17-19.

26.Id. at 237-239.

27.Gatan v. Vinarao, 820 Phil. 257, 265 (2017).

28.Land Bank of the Philippines v. Paden, 609 Phil. 586, 600-601 (2009).

29. Rule 19 DROPPING FROM THE ROLLS

Section 93. Grounds and Procedure for Dropping from the Rolls. — Officers and employees who are either habitually absent or have unsatisfactory or poor performance or have shown to be physically and mentally unfit to perform their duties may be dropped from the rolls subject to the following procedures:

a. Absence Without Approved Leave

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

2. If the number of unauthorized absences incurred is less than thirty (30) working days, a written Return-to-Work order shall be served on the official or employee at his/her last known address on record. Failure on his/her part to report to work within the period stated in the order shall be a valid ground to drop him/her from the rolls.

3. If it is clear under the obtaining circumstances that the official or employee concerned, has established a scheme to circumvent the rule by incurring substantial absences though less than thirty (30) working days, three (3) times in a semester, such that a pattern is already apparent, dropping from the rolls without notice may likewise be justified.

30.Rollo, p. 261.

31.Tria v. Sto. Tomas, 276 Phil. 923, 938 (1991).

32.Id.

33.Isberto v. Raquiza, 160-A Phil. 252, 258 (1975).

34.Rollo, p. 242.

35. See Dissenting Opinion of Justice Artemio Panganiban (Ret.) in City Government of Makati City v. Civil Service Commission, 426 Phil. 631, 665 (2002).

36. Federico's birthday is on July 25, 1957; rollo, p. 126.

37.Id. at 238.

38.RTC Makati Movement Against Graft and Corruption v. Atty. Dumlao, 317 Phil. 128, 137 (1995).

39.Supra note 21.

40.Id.

41.Id. at 650-651.

42.Civil Service Commission v. Plopinio, 808 Phil. 318, 336-337 (2017).

n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document. Discrepancy between amount in words and in figures.