FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 208209. June 20, 2018.]
DR. FRANCISCO T. DUQUE III, CHAIRMAN OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, DR. GERARDO V. BAYUGO, UNDERSECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, AND LYDIA A. CASTILLO, DIRECTOR OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, REGION IV, petitioners,vs. REYNALDO J. MUNSAYAC, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 20, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 208209 (Dr. Francisco T. Duque III, Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, Dr. Gerardo V. Bayugo, Undersecretary of the Department of Health, and Lydia A. Castillo, Director of the Civil Service Commission, Region IV v. Reynaldo J. Munsayac.)
The Court resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari1 filed by petitioner Dr. Francisco T. Duque III (petitioner), Chairman of the Civil Service Commission (CSC), through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Court of Appeals (CA) July 10, 2013 Decision 2 in CA-G.R. SP. No. 123249. The appellate court reversed and set aside the Decision 3 dated June 14, 2011 of the CSC En Banc, and ordered the reinstatement of respondent Reynaldo J. Munsayac (respondent) to his former position.
The Factual Antecedents
On February 20, 1985, the Department of Health (DOH), Region IV, engaged the services of respondent as a sanitary engineer. In 1990, his item was changed to that of a civil engineer. 4
Between the years of 2005 and 2006, respondent filed several complaints against the officials of the DOH for various infractions, to wit: (i) violation of the Government Procurement Reform Act; (ii) illegal withholding of salary; and (iii) illegal use of government vehicle. 5 CAIHTE
On December 2, 2008, however, respondent was preventively suspended for a period of 90 days which started on December 8, 2008 and ended on March 8, 2009, as a result of the administrative charge filed against him for gross insubordination. 6
After respondent reported for work on March 9, 2009, he allegedly incurred unauthorized absences, totalling more than 45 days, in the months of March, April, May, June, and July of the same year. 7
Thus, on July 13, 2009, respondent sent a memorandum to Dr. Gerardo V. Bayugo (Dr. Bayugo), Director IV of Center for Health Development IV-A, DOH, wherein he submitted his daily time record for the months of December 2008, March 2009, April 2009, May 2009, and June 2009, including his leave applications which were received by the office of the latter on July 14, 2009. 8
On August 14, 2009, Dr. Bayugo issued a Memorandum wherein respondent was informed that he had been dropped from the roll of employees due to his accumulated, numerous, and successive absences without official leave during the months of March, April, May, and June 2009. 9
Dismayed, respondent filed an appeal with the CSC Regional Office No. IV (ROIV) wherein he argued that his absences from March to June 2009, were due to his illness and were fully supported by medical certificates. 10
Respondent further claimed that upon returning to work, he immediately filed his sick leave applications, but Dr. Bayugo refused to process and approve the same. According to him, since his absences were due to illness, the act of dropping him from the rolls was patently without legal basis. 11
For his defense, Dr. Bayugo countered that respondent did not submit any applications for leave or medical certificates to him. As a matter of fact, none of the alleged leave applications show that the same were received by the Personnel Section. Also, the medical certificate submitted by respondent only justified his absence on May 26, 2009. 12
The Ruling of the CSC-ROIV
On April 5, 2010, the CSC-ROIV rendered its Decision 13 denying the appeal of respondent.
It held that the leave forms allegedly filed by respondent failed to show that the same were duly received by the Personnel Section. Also, there was no proof to show that he indeed submitted said form for processing and/or approval. The CSC-ROIV did not accept respondent's reason that it was futile to submit considering the animosity between him and Dr. Bayugo. 14 DETACa
Aggrieved, respondent appealed the decision to the CSC En Banc, wherein his appeal was treated as a petition for review. 15
The Ruling of the CSC En Banc
On June 14, 2011, the CSC En Banc issued its Decision wherein it dismissed the petition and accordingly affirmed the Decision of the CSC-ROIV. 16
A Motion for Reconsideration was filed but the same was denied in a Resolution dated January 10, 2012. 17
Undaunted, respondent filed a Petition for Review under Rule 43 before the CA.
The Ruling of the CA
On July 10, 2013, the CA rendered its Decision wherein it granted the petition filed by respondent and directed his reinstatement to his former position with payment of back salaries and other benefits. 18
In granting the petition, the CA held that respondent's daily time records and leave applications were properly attached to his Memorandum dated July 13, 2009 and duly received by Dr. Bayugo's office, as indicated by a stamp-mark on the top margin thereof. Records show, however, that Dr. Bayugo failed or refused to act on the same. 19
Moreover, the CA held that a medical certificate is only required when the application for sick leave is in excess of five days. Here, respondent's daily time records reveal that he had only been absent for five consecutive days on that one occasion, which was from March 2 to March 6, 2009. All his other absences were less than five days hence, a medical certificate was not necessary. 20 ATICcS
Hence, this petition.
The Ruling of the Court
The petition has no merit.
It is well settled that in cases of dismissal from employment, the burden of proof is upon the employer to show the validity of the dismissal. In the present case, petitioner failed to discharge this burden. 21
It is undisputed that petitioner dropped respondent from the rolls based on Section 63, Rule XVI of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations, as amended, which pertinently provides:
Sec. 63. Effect of absences without approval leave — An official or an employee who is continuously absent without approved leave for at least thirty (30) calendar 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 of his separation from the service, not later than five (5) days from its effectivity.
In short, an Absence Without Official Leave (AWOL) means that the employee has left or abandoned his position for a continuous period of 30 days or more without any justifiable reason and notice to his employer.
In the present case, petitioner failed to show that respondent had gone, or had the intention to go, on AWOL. As found by the CA, respondent submitted his daily time records and leave applications to Dr. Bayugo, the latter, however, failed to act on the same.
In this connection, Section 49, 22 Rule XVI of the Omnibus Rules on Leave is instructive which requires that an application for leave should be acted upon within 5 working days from receipt, otherwise, such application is deemed approved. Thus, Dr. Bayugo committed reversible error when he failed to act on respondent's application for leave and outrightly dropped the latter from the rolls of employees. Had he been of the view that the sick leave applications should not be allowed as the same were unsupported by medical certificates, the appropriate action should have been to indicate his reason for disapproval and affixing his signature thereon.
All told, the Court finds no error on the part of the CA when it granted respondent's petition and ordered his reinstatement to his former position with payment of back salaries and benefits.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is hereby DENIED. The assailed Decision dated July 10, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP. No. 123249 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." Leonardo-De Castro, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2559 dated May 11, 2018; Jardeleza, J., no part, due to his prior action as Solicitor General; Peralta, J., designated additional Member per Raffle dated February 20, 2017; Gesmundo, J., designated as Acting Member of the First Division per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018. TIADCc
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENAActing Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 7-28.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., concurred in by Associate Justices Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and Samuel H. Gaerlan; Id. at 29-40.
3.Id. at 113-118.
4.Id. at 30.
5.Id. at 30-31.
6.Id. at 9.
7.Id.
8.Id. at 31.
9.Id.
10.Id. at 32.
11.Id.
12.Id.
13.Id. at 107-112.
14.Id. at 110.
15.Id. at 118.
16.Id.
17.Id. at 118-120.
18.Id. at 39-40.
19.Id. at 35.
20.Id.
21.Batangas State University v. Bonifacio, 514 Phil. 335, 341 (2005).
22. Sec. 49. Period within which to act on leave application. — Whenever the application for leave of absence, including the terminal leave, is not acted upon by the head of the agency or his duly authorized representative within five (5) working days after receipt thereof, the application for leave of absence shall be deemed approved.