PHILCOA v GARRIDO
FACTS:
Garrido, respondent, on July 1993 verbally sought permission from PCA administrator David to take a 5 month vacation in connection with his intention to accept a job offer in West Africa. David advised respondent to make sure that his(respondent) request conforms to the Civil Service Rules and to prepare the necessary documents. On 21 July 1993, respondent filed his application for leave for 98 days which would run from 28 July 1993 to 17 December 1993. Respondent, on 28 July 1993, commenced his vacation leave and departed for West Africa. However, on September 1993 or 2 months after the application for leave, David issued a memorandum disapproving respondent’s application for leave which was received through his (respondent) office. On 18 December 1993, respondent arrived in the Philippines and reported back to his office. It was only then that he found out the letter of disapproval. 3 days after, he was confined to the hospital until his discharge on 2 January 1994. Days after he was discharged in the hospital, he re-filed his vacation leave and incorporated therein his sick leave. However, on 4 February 1994, he received a letter from David informing him that he was already dropped from the rolls effective 26 December 1993 for being absent without official leave (AWOL) for more than 30 days pursuant to a Civil Service Memorandum. Respondent appealed his case in the CSC but lost and was later overturned by the CA hinging on the reasoning of lack of due notice hence the appeal of Philcoa.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent was illegally dismissed.
HELD:
YES, although the granting or disapproval of leaves depends upon the need of the service and is discretionary upon the head of the agency, such discretion was not exercised properly in this case. David disapproved the leave only on 15 September 1993 or 2 months after the application for leave was filed. Such unexplained inaction by David gave respondent the impression that there was no impediment to his(respondent) application. Moreover, respondent complied with David’s initial instruction when he verbally sought the latter’s permission. Thus, it would be baseless to conclude that respondent went on leave without an approved application.
