RE: DROPPING FROM THE ROLLS

RE: DROPPING FROM THE ROLLS OF ROWIE A. QUIMNO, Utility Worker 1, Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Ipil-Tungawan_Roseller T. Lim, Ipil, Zambuanga Sibugay

A.M. NO. 17-03-33-MCTC

APRIL 17, 2017

FACTS:

Mr. Rowie A. Quimno, Utility Worker 1 in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Ipil-Tungawan-Roseller T. Lim, Zambuanga, Sibugay. Based on the records of the different offices of the Supreme Court, Quimno is still in the plantilla of court personnel, and thus, considered to be in active service; he is no longer in the payroll; he has no application for retirement; no administrative case is pending against him; and he is not an accountable officer. While the records of the Employee’s Leave Division, Office of the Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator, Supreme Court, shows that Quimno has not submitted his Daily Time Record since February 2016 up to the present. He neither submitted any application for leave. Thus, he has been on absence without official leave since February 1, 2016. Hence, his name was dropped from the rolls effective February 1, 2016 for having been absent without official leave for more than thirty (30) working days; his position was declared vacant; but he is still qualified to receive the benefits he may be entitled to, under existing laws and may still be reemployed in the government.

ISSUE:

Is absence without official/approved leave, a ground for separation from service.

HELD:

YES. Section 63, Rule XVI of the Omnibus Rules on Leave, as amended by Memorandum Circular No. 13, Series of 2007, states: “Section 63. Effect of absence without approved leave. – An official or employee who is continuously absent without approved leave for the last thirty (30) working days shall be considered an absence without official leave (AWOL) and shall be separated from the service or dropped from the rolls without prior notice.

Indeed, prolonged unauthorized absence causes inefficiency in the public service. A court employee’s continued absence without leave disrupts the normal functions of the court. It contravenes the duty of a public servant to serve with the utmost degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency. A court personnel’s conduct is laden with the heavy burden of responsibility to uphold public accountability and maintain people’s faith in the judiciary. Quimno’s conduct constitutes gross disregard and neglect of his duties. Undeniably, he failed to adhere to the high standards of public accountability imposed on all those in the government service.