A.M. No. T-344. July 22, 1975. IN RE: PEDRO P. TONGSON.
FACTS

Pedro P. Tongson, Budget Officer-Deputy Clerk of Court of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Quezon City, was dismissed by the Secretary of Justice on October 13, 1972, for abandonment of office due to his unexplained absence beginning July 7, 1972. Tongson appealed this dismissal to the President. The case remained unresolved when, upon the ratification of the 1973 Constitution, administrative supervision over court personnel was transferred to the Supreme Court. Tongson subsequently wrote directly to the Court on January 6, 1975, seeking a review of his dismissal.
Tongson’s absence was precipitated by a family crisis. His son was involved in a fatal incident, forcing the family to flee their home for safety, which caused his wife to become hysterical. On July 8, 1972, he verbally informed three court officials of his need for an indefinite leave. The family later traveled to Ilocos Sur to attend a funeral. While there, floods made roads impassable, stranding them. Upon returning to Manila on August 12, threats to his family recurred, exacerbating his wife’s illness. He sent a telegram requesting leave extension, but Judge Leonor Ines Luciano noted she was unaware of any formal leave application.

ISSUE

Whether the dismissal of Pedro P. Tongson for abandonment of office was justified.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that Tongson’s dismissal was not justified, ordering his reinstatement. The legal logic centered on the distinction between mere absence and the legal concept of abandonment of office. Abandonment requires a clear, voluntary, and unjustified intent to relinquish one’s position, which was not present here. The Court found Tongson’s explanation for his absence satisfactory, as the events—fleeing from danger, attending a funeral, being stranded by floods, and caring for a sick wife—were misfortunes beyond his control and constituted valid reasons for his non-attendance. These circumstances negated any imputation of a deliberate intent to abandon his post.
However, the Court faulted Tongson for his procedural lapse in failing to file a formal written application for leave of absence with his immediate superior, Judge Luciano. This neglect constituted an infraction. As a disciplinary measure and considering he rendered no service during his absence, the Court deemed it proper to consider the entire period of absence as leave without pay. Furthermore, applying Presidential Decree No. 6, which governed his dismissal, the period from his dismissal to reinstatement was considered a suspension during the pendency of his meritorious appeal. The Court ordered Tongson reinstated to his former position, with the directive that his absence from July 7, 1972, until his return be treated as leave without pay.