The Supreme Court held that an employee cannot be dropped from the rolls for being absent without official leave (AWOL) if the employer fails to prove continuous absence of at least 30 calendar days and fails to follow due process. This decision emphasizes the employer’s burden of proof in termination cases and protects employees from arbitrary removal. It serves as a crucial reminder that employers must substantiate claims of AWOL and adhere to procedural requirements to ensure fairness and legality in employment decisions.

When Attendance Sheets Clash: Substantiating Employee Absences

In Elenita S. Binay v. Emerita Odeña, the central question revolved around whether Emerita Odeña was rightfully dropped from the rolls of the City Government of Makati for alleged absences without official leave (AWOL). The case hinged on conflicting evidence regarding Odeña’s attendance, specifically the weight given to her personal attendance sheet versus the official time records of the city. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining if the city government had sufficient basis to terminate Odeña’s employment, and whether the Civil Service Commission (CSC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) erred in their assessment of the evidence.

The controversy began when Mayor Elenita S. Binay issued a memorandum dropping Emerita Odeña from the employee rolls due to alleged AWOL since November 10, 1999. Odeña contested this, presenting her personal attendance sheet as proof of her presence at work. The CSC sided with Odeña, finding that the city government failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the AWOL claim. The CSC resolution ordered Odeña’s reinstatement with back salaries, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals with a modification limiting back salaries to a maximum of five years.

The petitioners, led by Mayor Binay, argued that the CSC and CA erred in recognizing Odeña’s personal attendance sheet over the official time sheet of the Makati City government. They also questioned the credibility of certifications from Odeña’s supervisor, who later retracted her statements. Furthermore, the petitioners claimed that Odeña was simultaneously enrolled in a two-year advertising course, implying she could not have been present at work during the contested period. The Supreme Court, however, found these arguments insufficient to overturn the decisions of the lower bodies.

The Supreme Court emphasized the principle that only questions of law may be raised in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. A question of law arises when there is doubt about what the law is on a certain set of facts, while a question of fact arises when the doubt concerns the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. Here, the petitioners were essentially asking the Court to re-evaluate the evidence presented, which is a question of fact outside the purview of Rule 45.

For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact.

Building on this principle, the Court noted that it is not a trier of facts and its jurisdiction is limited to reviewing errors of law. The factual findings of quasi-judicial bodies like the CSC, when adopted and confirmed by the CA and supported by substantial evidence, are generally accorded respect and finality. Several exceptions to this rule exist, such as when the findings are based on speculation or a misapprehension of facts, but none of these exceptions applied in this case.

Furthermore, the Court reiterated that in cases of dismissal from employment, the burden of proof rests on the employer to demonstrate the validity of the dismissal. The city government based its decision to drop Odeña from the rolls on Section 63, Rule XVI of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations, which states:

Sec. 63. Effect of absences without approval leave. – An official or an employee who is continuously absent without approved leave for at least thirty (30) calendar days shall be considered on absence without official leave (AWOL) and shall be separated from the service or dropped from the rolls without prior notice. He shall, however, be informed, at his address appearing on his 201 files of his separation from the service, not later than five (5) days from its effectivity.

The Supreme Court found that the city government failed to prove that Odeña was continuously absent for at least 30 calendar days without approval. Odeña presented copies of Index of Payments based on duly accomplished Daily Time Records (DTRs), which reflected her official attendance. Her receipt of salary during the contested period further indicated that her office attendance was regular. The Court also dismissed the claim that Odeña incurred 400 absences, deeming it mathematically impossible. Finally, the Court found the allegation that Odeña’s supervisor did not know her, despite verifying her attendance sheets, illogical and unpersuasive.

This decision highlights the importance of proper documentation and adherence to due process in employment matters. Employers must maintain accurate records of employee attendance and ensure that any disciplinary actions are based on solid evidence. Moreover, employees have a right to present evidence and challenge any claims of misconduct or absenteeism. This case serves as a reminder that employment decisions must be fair, just, and supported by credible evidence.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the City Government of Makati had sufficient grounds to drop Emerita Odeña from the rolls for being absent without official leave (AWOL). The court examined the evidence presented by both sides to determine if Odeña’s absences met the criteria for AWOL as defined by civil service rules.
What is AWOL?	AWOL stands for Absence Without Official Leave. In this context, it refers to an employee’s absence from work for a continuous period of at least thirty (30) calendar days without any justifiable reason or prior notice to the employer.
Who has the burden of proof in dismissal cases?	In cases of dismissal from employment, the burden of proof lies with the employer. The employer must demonstrate that the dismissal was for a just and valid cause, supported by substantial evidence.
What evidence did Odeña present to counter the AWOL claim?	Odeña presented her personal attendance sheet and copies of Index of Payments based on duly accomplished Daily Time Records (DTRs). These documents reflected her attendance at work during the period in question and supported her claim that she was not absent without leave.
Why did the Supreme Court uphold the lower court’s decision?	The Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision because the City Government of Makati failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that Odeña was continuously absent for at least 30 calendar days without approval. The Court also noted that it does not re-evaluate factual findings when reviewing cases on certiorari.
What is the significance of the Daily Time Record (DTR)?	The Daily Time Record (DTR) is an official document that records an employee’s daily attendance at work. It serves as primary evidence of an employee’s presence and is crucial for determining their eligibility for salary and other benefits.
What is the role of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) in this case?	The Civil Service Commission (CSC) is the central personnel agency of the Philippine government. In this case, the CSC reviewed the City Government of Makati’s decision to drop Odeña from the rolls and found that there was insufficient evidence to support the AWOL claim, leading to the order for her reinstatement.
How long can an illegally terminated employee claim back salaries?	An illegally terminated civil service employee is entitled to back salaries, limited to a maximum period of five years from the date of illegal dismissal up to the date of reinstatement.

This case underscores the importance of due process and evidentiary support in employment termination cases. Employers must ensure that their actions are grounded in factual evidence and comply with established legal procedures to avoid liability and uphold employee rights.

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: Binay vs. Odeña, G.R. No. 163683, June 08, 2007