AM P 06 2183; (June, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. No. P-06-2183, June 27, 2006
Absence Without Official Leave (AWOL) of Alberto V. Monsanto, Metropolitan Trial Court, Catbalogan, Samar
FACTS
This administrative case concerns Alberto V. Monsanto, a Utility Worker I at the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Catbalogan, Samar. Records from the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) revealed that Monsanto failed to submit his Daily Time Records (DTRs) from May 2005 onward and did not file any application for leave. The OCA, through a telegram and a subsequent warning letter served via the presiding judge, directed him to explain his absences and submit the missing DTRs. Monsanto did not comply with these directives and failed to report back to work.
Despite the OCA’s formal communications and a recommendation to withhold his salary, Monsanto remained non-compliant and absent. Consequently, the OCA recommended that he be dropped from the rolls effective May 3, 2005, for being continuously absent without official leave (AWOL), pursuant to the relevant civil service rules.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Alberto V. Monsanto may be dropped from the rolls for being continuously absent without official leave (AWOL).
RULING
Yes. The Court approved the OCA’s recommendation and ordered Monsanto dropped from the service. The legal basis is Section 63, Rule XVI of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations, as amended. This rule explicitly states that an employee who is continuously absent without approved leave for at least thirty (30) calendar days shall be considered on AWOL and shall be separated from service or dropped from the rolls without prior notice. The law only requires that the employee be informed of the separation at his address on record within five days from its effectivity.
The Court emphasized that Monsanto’s prolonged absence, which began on May 3, 2005, and his defiance of the OCA’s directives to report back, clearly prejudiced public service. As a court employee, his conduct fell short of the stringent standards of accountability, responsibility, and efficiency required in the judiciary. AWOL for such an extended period constitutes conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, warranting the penalty of dismissal. The Court reiterated that public office is a public trust and cannot countenance any act that diminishes public faith in the administration of justice.