G.R. No. 167762 , December 15, 2005
Batangas State University vs. Nestor Bonifacio

FACTS

Respondent Nestor Bonifacio, a faculty member of Batangas State University, was among those who filed a graft complaint against the university president, Dr. Ernesto M. De Chavez, and participated in protest rallies. Subsequently, he was reassigned to the office of the president. Bonifacio requested and was granted permission to report after the semester ended on October 13, 1994, and he continued his teaching and coaching duties. However, on January 10, 1995, he was dropped from the rolls for being Absent Without Official Leave (AWOL) for over 30 days.
Bonifacio contested his dismissal, asserting he was never absent and that the reassignment and subsequent dropping were retaliatory acts. He presented Daily Time Records, a logbook, and letters from a school coordinator as evidence of his attendance. He claimed his DTRs were not accepted because his new supervisor refused to sign them. The Civil Service Commission upheld the dismissal, but the Court of Appeals reversed, ordering his reinstatement with back salaries limited to five years.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the Civil Service Commission and finding that respondent Bonifacio was illegally dismissed and not on AWOL.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals, with modification on the backwages. The core issue was factual: whether Bonifacio incurred AWOL. While factual findings of administrative agencies are generally respected, the Court found a conflict between the CSC’s conclusions and the appellate court’s. Upon review, the Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s finding that Bonifacio did not go AWOL.
The legal logic rests on the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure. An employee cannot be removed except for cause provided by law. The dropping from the rolls for AWOL requires that the absence be unauthorized and continuous. The evidence showed Bonifacio continued performing his substantive duties as a teacher and coach with the president’s knowledge. His failure to report to the new detail assignment, under the specific retaliatory context and without a clear definition of his new functions, did not constitute a valid abandonment of his post or justify a finding of AWOL. The reassignment under these circumstances was tainted with bad faith, constituting a constructive dismissal. On backwages, the Court modified the award, ruling that an illegally dismissed government employee is entitled to full backwages and benefits from dismissal until actual reinstatement, not limited to five years.