GR 163683; (June, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 163683; June 8, 2007
ELENITA S. BINAY, in her capacity as Mayor of the City of Makati, MARIO RODRIGUEZ and PRISCILLA FERROLINO, Petitioners, vs. EMERITA ODEÑA, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Emerita Odeña was employed by the Makati City Government. On June 8, 2000, then-Mayor Elenita Binay issued a memorandum dropping Odeña from the rolls, effective May 15, 2000, on the ground of Absence Without Official Leave (AWOL) since November 10, 1999. The action was based on a report from the Timekeeper Section. Odeña contested her dismissal, asserting she had reported for work. She presented a personal attendance sheet, verified by her immediate supervisor, showing her attendance for the disputed period, and argued she could not have received her salary if she were absent.
Odeña appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC). The CSC granted her appeal, setting aside the dismissal order. It found that while Odeña incurred some absences, there was no continuous absence of at least thirty working days to justify dropping her from the rolls. The CSC gave credence to her attendance sheet as a supplement to the official Daily Time Record. The Court of Appeals affirmed the CSC’s ruling but modified the award of back salaries, limiting it to a maximum of five years.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the CSC’s finding that the City Government of Makati had no valid basis to drop respondent Odeña from the rolls.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed decisions. The Court emphasized that factual findings of administrative bodies like the CSC, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are generally conclusive and binding if supported by substantial evidence. The petitioners failed to prove any of the recognized exceptions to this rule. The CSC’s factual determination—that Odeña did not incur a continuous thirty-day absence warranting dismissal under civil service rules—was upheld.
The Court found no merit in petitioners’ arguments challenging the evidentiary weight of Odeña’s attendance sheet and her supervisor’s certification. The CSC reasonably accepted the attendance sheet as corroborative evidence of her presence, especially since it was verified and her salary was processed. The alleged retraction by the supervisor and Odeña’s university enrollment were insufficient to overturn the CSC’s conclusions. The dropping of an employee from the rolls is a severe action that requires strict compliance with procedural and substantive due process. The burden of proof rests on the employer, and in this case, the City Government failed to present clear evidence of a sustained, unauthorized absence justifying the drastic penalty of separation.