CSC v. PLOPINIO

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Petitioner vs. CRISOSTOMO M. PLOPINIO, Respondent

G.R. No. 197571

April 3, 2017

FACTS:

Respondent served as a COMELEC Election Officer III of Sipocot, Camarines Sur, prior to his separation from the service. There is a letter-complaint against respondent alleging that because of respondent's frequent absences, the reason why respondent failed to act for disqualification of a barangay candidate.

Acting Director IV Adolfo A. Ibafiez, Personnel Department, COMELEC, conducted an investigation on a letter complaint against respondent and submitted a Memorandum to Commissioner Florentino A. Tuason, Jr., COMELEC, who, in turn, forwarded the same to the COMELEC en banc for appropriate action.

The COMELEC en banc RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, to approve the recommendation of Director Adolfo A. lbañez to drop the respondent from the rolls of COMELEC employees and the salaries paid to him until June 30, 2003 be charged against his leave credits. Com. Tuason then issued a Memorandum, directing respondent to immediately cease and desist from performing his official duties, based, among other grounds, on his unauthorized absences. However, Dir. Ibanez also issued a Memorandum for the COMELEC en banc, withdrawing his earlier recommendation to drop respondent from the rolls of employees and justified the change in his findings and recommendation that due to the foregoing superseding events, it appears that respondent was reporting, as he did report to office on certain days per his daily time records submitted to the OPES. One key issue however is that many DTR entries were being questioned by respondent's supervisor for being invalid or unauthorized considering his reported absences. Consequently, because of the inability to fully establish a successive thirty-day absence without approved leave (AWOL) on the part of respondent, the undersigned withdraws his former recommendation to drop from the rolls. However, considering that respondent incurred a series of unauthorized or questioned absences, it is recommended that PES Cariño file an administrative complaint against [respondent] for absenteeism and other administrative disciplinary cases as warranted. Considering the problem that is obtaining in the Office of the Election Officer of Sipocot, Camarines Sur and in the exigency of the service, it is recommended that respondent be immediately reassigned pursuant to the provisions of R.A. 8189.

Through his Memorandum for the COMELEC en bane, respondent sought reconsideration of COMELEC Resolution, as well as Com. Tuason's Memorandum and lamented that the COMELEC en bane was misled by Dir. Ibañez's initial recommendation to drop him from the rolls of employees, which lacked factual and legal bases; and that he was not afforded due process as he was never confronted with any formal charge regarding his alleged absenteeism prior to COMELEC Resolution.

Considering the foregoing, the Commission RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, to DENY the Motion for Reconsideration of respondent and to reiterate Resolution No. 03-0278 dropping him from the rolls of Comelec employees. Respondent appealed before the CSC and the Commission would have been convinced with the representation of [respondent] if he submitted documentary evidence showing that he indeed was reporting for work. Mere allegations and statements without any evidence to support it cannot overthrow the regularity in the performance of the Comelec in dropping him from the rolls. Hence, the CSC issued Resolution No. 071241 denying respondent's Motion for Reconsideration for being a mere rehash of his appeal which was already addressed in Resolution No. 070560 and ruled that: If respondent and his counsel only took the time to evaluate the assailed Resolution they would realize that what the Commission wanted [respondent] to proffer are the documents that he enumerated in his Memorandum to the Comelec-Personnel Department dated August 4, 2003. Since he failed to submit these documents, [respondent] basically has no evidence to support his cause. At any rate, submission of such documentary evidence will not automatically free [respondent] from any liability for his absences without official leave as the Commission will still have to evaluate the said documents.

Aggrieved, respondent appealed CSC Resolutions before the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court and found merit in respondent's appeal and adjudged that Based on the records, it was established that [respondent] had in fact submitted his DTRs to his immediate supervisor, who admitted receiving the same but refused to verify it for she was suspecting that the entries therein were falsified. Thus, since it was established that the DTRs were submitted, the resolution of the COMELEC dropping [respondent] from the rolls is without basis. Hence, the CA ruled in favor of the respondent and hereby GRANT his petition and the Resolution of the CSC affirming COMELEC Resolutions dropping respondent from the rolls of employees is hereby REVERSED and SETASIDE. Hence, the petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the court of appeals erred on a question of law in finding that respondent was deprived of due process.

HELD:

The Petition is bereft of merit. There is no question that a public officer or employee who is AWOL may be separated from service or dropped from the rolls of employees without prior notice. Based on current rules, a public officer or employee may be dropped from the rolls for AWOL without prior notice, under any of the following circumstances: (1) the public officer or employee was continuously absent without approved leave for at least 30 working days; or (2) the public officer or employee had established a scheme to circumvent the rule by incurring substantial absences, though less than 30 working days, three times in a semester, such that a pattern was readily apparent.

Dropping from the rolls is not disciplinary in nature. It shall not result in the forfeiture of any benefit of the public official or employee concerned nor in said public official or employee's disqualification from reemployment in the government. Thus, the concerned public official or employee need not be notified or be heard.28 In light of the foregoing circumstances, there is reasonable ground to believe that respondent did submit his DTRs for January to April 2002 and January to July 2003 to his immediate supervisor, PES Cariño, who did not sign and forward the same to the COMELEC Personnel Department. Therefore, there is no more factual basis for the presumption that respondent had been AWOL for the said time periods that would have, in turn, justified his being dropped from the rolls. Without such presumption, the COMELEC could only insist on the dropping of respondent from the rolls on the ground of AWOL if it could establish that respondent had been actually absent without approved leave for 30 days or more - which the COMELEC en banc utterly failed to do in this case. In sum, there being no factual basis that respondent had been AWOL, he could not simply be dropped from the rolls. Any other allegation of wrongdoing on respondent's part, i.e., falsification of entries in the DTRs or frequent absenteeism, does not warrant dropping from the rolls, but require the institution of any appropriate charge and/or administrative proceedings against respondent before any disciplinary action can be taken against him. The Court of Appeals, therefore, did not commit any reversible error in ordering respondent's reinstatement and payment of his back salaries.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition is DENIED for lack of merit and the Decision dated July 12, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 99906 is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.