ISBERTO v RAQUIZA
FACTS
In 1957, Isberto was appointed as a Building Foreman in the Office of the District Engineer of Pangasinan in a permanent capacity (salary of P2040 p.a.). Months after, he was diagnosed with Pott’s disease (TB of the bone), which prompted him to apply for a leave of absence. This was initially granted with pay, but later on, without pay. It took him 4 years to recover from the disease. In 1961, he sent a letter to Bandong (District Engineer) requesting his return to his position, which was denied since it had already been occupied by Alegre. Since he could not go back to his old position, he looked for another and luckily, he was appointed as a construction foreman in 1964 with the same salary as Alegre’s. In 1969, Isberto filed a suit to recover his back salaries amounting to P11K, from 1961 (when he requested to return) to 1964 (when he was appointed) on the ground that he was unjustly or unlawfully removed from his old position during that period. The defendants contend that upon his application for leave of absence, he had abandoned his post and was already considered automatically separated from the service. Lower court ordered the defendants to pay Isberto his back wages amounting to P11K.
ISSUE
Whether Isberto was legally separated from the service ?
HELD
YES. Pursuant to Rule XVI, Sec. 33 of the Revised Civil Service Rules, “Under no circumstances shall leave without pay be granted for more than one year. If an employee who is on leave without pay for any reason fails to return to duty at the expiration of one year from the effective date of such leave, he shall be considered automatically separated from the service; Provided, That he shall, within a reasonable time before the expiration of his one year leave of absence without pay, be notified in writing of the expiration thereof with a warning that if he fails to report for duty on said date he will be dropped from the service.” In this case, Isberto went on leave (with permission) for 129 days–29 days with pay, 100 days without pay. After this period, he was AWOL–absence without official leave. Based on Sec 33, his one-year leave of absence without pay would have ended in Jan 1959, but he only asked to be reinstated in June 1961. It may be argued that Isberto was not given a written notice within a reasonable period before expiration of his LOA without pay, as required under Sec 33. However, this is immaterial since Isberto did not even have a proper LOA without pay because his official LOA without pay was only until Apr 1958 and he did not extend it. His failure to claim for reinstatement for a period a 2.5 years shows a clear case of abandonment–he was deemed automatically separated from the service. For that period, all he did was to write a letter requesting his reinstatement and did not file any action to contest the legality of his separation. He did not likewise contest the title of Alegre to the office. “A person claiming rights to a position in the civil service must institute the proper proceedings to assert his right within the period of one year from the date of separation, otherwise he will be considered as having abandoned his office, or even acquiesced or consented to his removal and, therefore, not entitled to bring action for his reinstatement. The rationale of this doctrine is that the Government must be immediately informed or advised if any person claiming to be entitled to an office or a position in the civil service as agent another actually holding it, so that the Government may not be faced with the predicament of having to pay two salaries, one for the person actually holding the office, although illegally, and another for one not actually rendering service although entitled to do so.” Thus, in this case, Isberto was legally separated from the service, based on abandonment and pursuant to Sec 33. As such, he was not entitled to back wages.
