G.R. No. 131392 , 6 February 2002
City Government of Makati, represented by Mayor Jejomar C. Binay, Petitioner, vs. Civil Service Commission and Eusebia R. Galzote, Respondents.

FACTS

Eusebia R. Galzote, a clerk for the Makati City Government, was arrested without a warrant on 6 September 1991 and detained for kidnapping and serious physical injuries. Due to her incarceration, the City Government suspended her from office starting 9 September 1991 “until the final disposition of her case.” While she remained detained and unaware, the City Government dropped her from the rolls effective 21 January 1993 for being absent without official leave for over one year. She was acquitted on 22 September 1994 for lack of evidence.
Upon release, Galzote requested reinstatement per the 1991 suspension memorandum but was denied. She sought relief from the Civil Service Commission (CSC), which ordered her immediate reinstatement with back wages from 19 October 1994. The Court of Appeals sustained the CSC. The City Government appealed, arguing her failure to file a formal leave application justified dropping her from the rolls.

ISSUE

Whether Galzote, who was under suspension by her employer due to detention for a non-bailable offense, could be considered absent without official leave and validly dropped from the rolls without prior notice upon her acquittal.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the CSC and Court of Appeals rulings. Galzote was not absent without leave. Her suspension by the City Government “until the final disposition of her case” was an explicit administrative action that rendered a separate formal leave application unnecessary. The suspension created a legitimate expectation of reinstatement upon case termination, which was fulfilled by her acquittal.
The Court emphasized that dropping her from the rolls without prior notice violated due process. The employer had actual knowledge of the reason for her non-reporting—her detention and the pending criminal case. The one-year absence rule for dropping employees cannot be mechanically applied when the absence is due to a suspension imposed by the employer itself pending a judicial proceeding. To require a detained employee to file a leave application under these circumstances is an oppressive adherence to technicality. The constitutional policy of full protection to labor mandates resolving doubts in favor of the employee, especially a lowly clerk like Galzote. Her acquittal restored her right to her position, and the back wages awarded compensated the period she was unlawfully excluded from work after presenting herself for duty.