CITY GOVERNMENT OF MAKATI v CSC
FACTS
Private respondent Eusebia R. Galzote, a clerk in the Department of Engineering and Public Works of Makati, was arrested without a warrant and detained allegedly for kidnapping for ransom with physical injuries. Thereafter, she was subjected to inquest, followed by the filing of a criminal case against her. As she was incarcerated, she wasn’t able to report for work as a result of which she was suspended from office until the final disposition of her case by petitioner City Government. However, thereafter, the City Government changed its policy. Without notice to private respondent who was then already detained, and even during the pendency of the trial against her, she was dropped from the rolls of municipal employees for being absent from work for more than one (1) year without official leave. Three (3) years later, Galzote was acquitted; she then requested for the lifting of her suspension and reinstatement to her former position. Close to a year has passed but the City Government still took no action, so she brought her request to the CSC. The CSC found merit in her submissions and ordered her immediate reinstatement with back wages. The City Government through a Petition for Review of the Resolution of the CSC elevated the case to the CA, but the latter sustained the resolution of the CSC. Hence, this instant petition. Petitioner wants to have Galzote declared on AWOL and faults her for failing to file an application for leave of absence under Secs. 20 and 35 of the CSC Rules, thereby rejecting the CSC’s ruling of an “automatic leave of absence for the period of her detention” since the current Civil Service Law and Rules do not contain any provision on such.
ISSUE
Whether or not Galzote should have still filed a formal application for LOA to ensure her reinstatement under the circumstances.
HELD
NO. There is no more need for this because of the act of the City Government in advising her 3 days after her arrest that she had been placed under suspension until the final disposition of her criminal case. This measure taken by the petitioner shows its recognition of private respondent’s predicament, and thus, in effect, allowed her to forego reporting for work during the pendency of her criminal case without the needless exercise of strict formalities. At the very least, this official communication should be taken as an equivalent of a prior approved LOA since it was her employer itself which placed her under suspension and thus excused her from further formalities in applying for such leave. The arrangement also bound the City Government to allow Galzote to return to her work after the termination of her case, i.e., upon acquittal. Thus, this pledge serves as a valid ground to altogether dispense with the formal application for leave. The contention that there is no specific provision in the CSC rules on automatic leaves should be overruled. While the general rule requires–pursuant to Secs. 20 and 52, as well as Secs. 35 and 63 of Administrative Code of 1987—an approved LOA to avoid being on AWOL, these provisions cannot be interpreted as exclusive and referring only to 1 mode of securing approval, which requires an employee to actually apply for it (formalities and all) before exceeding 30 days of absence. There are, after all, other means of seeking and granting approved LOA, one of which is the CSC recognized rule of automatic LOA under specified circumstances. Situations of illness are not the only instances of force majeure; other events beyond the control of the employee also force him to be absent from work, such as when he is kidnapped or arrested and detained from alleged crimes. It is the latter cases which the CSC sought to address in interpreting the CSC rules on LOA as including or contemplating an automatic LOA. In these force majeure instances, the employee is excused from filing provided that he informs the employer of the unfortunate event behind his absence. Here, the Court is convinced that Galzote has sufficiently informed the City Government of her predicament. DISSENT OF J. PANGANIBAN To begin with, the current Civil Service Law and Rules do not contain any provision of automatic leaves of absence. The rules unmistakably say that that government employees who are AWOL for at least 30 days shall be dropped from the service—making no distinction or qualification whatsoever as to the reason for the absence. Simply, one who fails to report continuously for the required minimum number of days without an approved leave is considered AWOL. Here, Galzote did not file an application for any type of leave, hence there’s no way that she can have an approve one. True that she could not have physically reported for work but there was nothing to stop her from writing to petitioner, informing the latter of her plight and applying for leave. Ethical Standards Law requires public officials and employees to observe “utmost integrity and strictest discipline.” They cannot be allowed to just “disappear” from their jobs and then, after many years, claim that their absence was “due to circumstances beyond their control.”
