The Supreme Court ruled that employees who are continuously absent without official leave (AWOL) for at least 30 working days may be dropped from the rolls without prior notice. This decision underscores the importance of public servants adhering to their duties and maintaining the efficiency of public service. The Court emphasized that prolonged unauthorized absences disrupt normal court functions and violate a public servant’s responsibility to serve with utmost integrity and efficiency.

When Silence Speaks Volumes: The Case of Florante Sumangil’s Unexplained Absence

This case revolves around Mr. Florante B. Sumangil, a Clerk III at the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 119 (RTC), who had been absent without official leave (AWOL) since December 2017. The records indicated that Sumangil did not submit his Daily Time Record (DTR) nor file any application for leave. Acting Presiding Judge Bibiano G. Colasito of the RTC forwarded a letter-report to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), detailing Sumangil’s prolonged absences. Inquiries about his whereabouts yielded conflicting information, with his housemate reporting that he left for Mindanao, while his daughter stated that his relatives had not seen him.

The OCA’s investigation revealed that Sumangil was still in the court’s plantilla, had not filed for retirement, had no pending administrative case, and was not an accountable officer. The OCA recommended that Sumangil be dropped from the rolls effective December 1, 2017, due to his unauthorized absences, and that his position be declared vacant. Furthermore, the OCA suggested that he be informed of his separation from service at his last known address, while also acknowledging his eligibility to receive benefits under existing laws and potential reemployment in the government. The Supreme Court then considered these recommendations.

The Supreme Court based its ruling on Section 107 (a) (1), Rule 20 of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (2017 RACCS), which addresses dropping employees from the rolls. This rule explicitly states:

Rule 20
DROPPING FROM THE ROLLS

Section 107. Grounds and Procedure for Dropping from the Rolls. Officers and employees who are absent without approved leave, have unsatisfactory or poor performance, or have shown to be physically or mentally unfit to perform their duties may be dropped from the rolls within thirty (30) days from the time a ground therefor arises subject to the following procedures:

a. Absence Without Approved Leave

1. An official or employee who is continuously absent without official leave (AWOL) for at least thirty (30) working days may be dropped from the rolls without prior notice which shall take effect immediately.

   He/she shall, however, have the right to appeal his/her separation within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the notice of separation which must be sent to his/her last known address. (Underscoring supplied)

Applying this provision, the Court agreed with the OCA’s recommendations, emphasizing that Sumangil’s prolonged absences since December 2017 warranted his separation from service. This decision highlights the crucial role of public servants in maintaining the integrity and efficiency of their offices. Failure to adhere to these standards, as seen in Sumangil’s case, can lead to administrative actions, including being dropped from the rolls.

The Court underscored that Sumangil’s prolonged unauthorized absences caused inefficiency in the public service by disrupting the normal functions of the court. This contravened his duty as a public servant to serve with the utmost degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency. The Court has consistently stressed the importance of public accountability and maintaining the people’s faith in the Judiciary, holding that a court personnel’s conduct is laden with this heavy responsibility. Sumangil’s failure to report for work was deemed a gross disregard and neglect of his office duties, demonstrating a failure to adhere to the high standards of public accountability imposed on all those in government service.

However, the Court clarified that dropping from the rolls is a non-disciplinary action. Consequently, Sumangil’s separation would not result in the forfeiture of his benefits nor disqualification from reemployment in the government. This distinction is crucial, as it separates administrative actions taken to maintain efficiency from punitive measures for misconduct. The purpose of dropping from the rolls is to address operational needs, not to penalize the employee in a disciplinary sense.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Mr. Florante B. Sumangil, who was absent without official leave (AWOL) since December 2017, should be dropped from the rolls. The Supreme Court examined the circumstances surrounding his absence and the applicable rules governing civil service employees.
What does it mean to be ‘dropped from the rolls’?	Being ‘dropped from the rolls’ means that an employee is removed from the official list of employees due to prolonged absence without leave or other specified reasons. This is an administrative action taken to address operational needs and maintain efficiency.
What is the basis for dropping an employee from the rolls due to AWOL?	The basis is Section 107 (a) (1), Rule 20 of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (2017 RACCS). It allows for the removal of employees who are continuously absent without official leave for at least 30 working days.
Is dropping from the rolls considered a disciplinary action?	No, dropping from the rolls is considered a non-disciplinary action. This means that it does not result in the forfeiture of benefits or disqualification from reemployment in the government.
What happens to the employee’s benefits when they are dropped from the rolls?	An employee who is dropped from the rolls is still qualified to receive the benefits they may be entitled to under existing laws. The separation is not a punitive measure that affects their earned benefits.
Can an employee who has been dropped from the rolls be reemployed in the government?	Yes, an employee who has been dropped from the rolls is still eligible for reemployment in the government. The separation does not disqualify them from future employment opportunities.
What duty did Sumangil violate as a public servant?	Sumangil violated his duty to serve with the utmost degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency. His prolonged unauthorized absences disrupted the normal functions of the court.
Does Sumangil have the right to appeal?	Yes, Sumangil has the right to appeal his separation within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the notice of separation, which must be sent to his last known address.

The Supreme Court’s resolution serves as a reminder of the responsibilities and expectations placed on public servants. Adherence to these standards is vital for maintaining the integrity and efficiency of public service. The Court’s ruling in the case of Florante B. Sumangil reaffirms the importance of accountability and diligence in the performance of official duties.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: RE: DROPPING FROM THE ROLLS OF MR. FLORANTE B. SUMANGIL, A.M. No. 18-04-79-RTC, June 20, 2018