G.R. No. 105752 September 2, 1993
INOCENCIO GONZALES, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Inocencio Gonzales, an Administrative Officer III at the Agricultural Training Institute (ATI) with 36 years of unblemished service, went to the United States in early 1990 due to family problems. He was initially granted leaves with pay until July 16, 1990. On June 25, 1990, while still abroad, he sent a letter to the ATI Director requesting leave without pay from July 1990 to December 1991, providing his U.S. address (149 Declaration Way, San Jose, California). The ATI Director did not act on this request. On September 5, 1990, ATI’s OIC, Atty. Ildefonso del Rosario, wrote to petitioner declaring him absent without official leave (AWOL) for over 30 days and ordering him to report within five days or be dropped from the rolls. This letter was sent to petitioner’s Philippine address (30 Ventura St., BF Homes, Quezon City), not his known U.S. address, and was returned to sender. ATI then published a notice in the Philippine Journal on October 4, 11, and 18, 1990. On October 24, 1990, ATI dropped petitioner from the rolls without furnishing him a copy. Upon returning to the Philippines and reporting for work on November 19, 1990, petitioner discovered he had been replaced. His protests to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) and the Merit Systems Protection Board were dismissed, with the CSC ruling in Resolution No. 92-640 that notice was “substantially” complied with and that ATI’s inaction on his leave request was immaterial.
ISSUE
Whether petitioner was denied due process when he was dropped from the rolls without proper notice, in violation of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 2, Series of 1985.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the CSC resolution. The Court held that ATI officials knew petitioner’s exact U.S. address from his June 25, 1990 letter but sent the notice to his Philippine address, which they knew he was not occupying. This did not constitute strict or substantial compliance with the notice requirement under CSC Memorandum Circular No. 2, Series of 1985, which mandates written notification to an AWOL employee. Notice by publication was improper since petitioner’s whereabouts were known. ATI’s failure to act promptly on petitioner’s leave request and its subsequent abrupt declaration of AWOL without explaining the “exigencies of the service” further demonstrated arbitrariness. Petitioner’s 36 years of faithful service heightened the demand for due process. The Court ordered petitioner’s reinstatement as Administrative Officer III or its equivalent without loss of rights or privileges. Petitioner’s other arguments—that he had accrued leaves and that his security of tenure was violated—were rejected as without merit or contrary to his prior position.
