AWOL, SC Decisions

5/24/2018 AWOL, SC Decisions

1/55

EN BANC

G.R. No. 150792 March 3, 2004

HON. REMEDIOS L. PETILLA,petitioner,vs.COURT OF APPEALS (Former Thirteenth Division), CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION andJERIEL L. ARDIENTE,respondents.

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO, J.:

The Case

Before this Court is a petition for certiorari1to nullify the Court of Appeals Resolutions2in CA-G.R. SP No. 65192 dated 22 June 2001 ("First Resolution") and 29 October 2001 ("Second

Resolution"). The First Resolution denied due course and dismissed the petition for review3

ofpetitioner Governor Remedios L. Petilla ("petitioner") while the Second Resolution denied themotion for reconsideration.

The Antecedents

On 1 July 1999, respondent Jeriel L. Ardiente ("respondent"), Nurse I of the Hilongos DistrictHospital, Hilongos, Leyte, filed a letter-protest before the Civil Service Commission ("CSC"),Region 8 Office. Respondent assailed his transfers to the Provincial Health Office, GovernmentCenter, Palo, Leyte, effective 6 May 1999, and to the Northwestern Leyte District Hospital,Calubian, Leyte, effective 21 May 1999.

Meanwhile, respondent applied for sick and vacation leave from 1 June to 31 August 1999. In aletter dated 7 September 1999,4the Provincial Health Office returned and disapprovedrespondents leave applications based on Section 23(q), Rule XIV of the CSC Rules.5Duringthe same period until 4 October 1999, respondent continuously failed to report to his newworkstation at the Northwestern Leyte District Hospital.

On 4 October 1999, petitioner issued Memorandum No. 99-255 dropping respondent from theroll of employees of the Leyte Provincial Government for unauthorized absences. Petitionerbased her action on Section 35, Rule XVI6of the CSC Rules.

On 8 October 1999, respondent received Memorandum No. 99-255. Respondent did not appealor challenge the memorandum in the appropriate forum.

On 14 February 2000, the CSC7issued Resolution No. 00-0441 declaring respondentsreassignments void. The dispositive portion of the Resolution reads:

WHEREFORE, the Orders issued by Governor Remedios L. Petilla, Province of Leyte,reassigning Jeriel L. Ardiente are hereby declared void. Accordingly, Governor Petilla ishereby directed to restore Ardiente to his former workstation at the Hilongos DistrictHospital, Hilongos, Leyte.8
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnthttp://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnthttp://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnthttp://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt2http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt2http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt3http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt3http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt4http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt4http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt4http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt5http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt5http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt5http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt6http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt6http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt7http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt7http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt8http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt8http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt8http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt8http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt7http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt6http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt5http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt4http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt3http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt2http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt


2/55

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of CSC Resolution No. 00-0441.9TheCSC10denied the motion for lack of merit in its Resolution No. 01-0726 dated 2 April 2001.11

Subsequently, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a Motion for Extension of Time to FilePetition for Review dated 29 May 2001 to question CSC Resolutions Nos. 00-0441 and 01-0726. Petitioner attached to her motion for extension the joint affidavit of Celia Maria dela Cruz

("Celia") and Ruth A. Loreto ("Ruth").12At the time, Celia was the Executive Assistant whileRuth was the Receiving Clerk of the Governors Office. In their joint affidavit, Ruth stated thatshe received CSC Resolution No. 01-0726 on 24 April 2001 and forwarded the same to Celia onthe same date. Celia did not give CSC Resolution No. 01-0726 to petitioner because the latterwas then in the west coast of Leyte attending to election matters. Meanwhile, Celia kept CSCResolution No. 01-0726 inside the offices filing cabinet. It was only on 29 May 2001 that Celiaand Ruth gave CSC Resolution No. 01-0726 to petitioner.

On 31 May 2001, without awaiting the Court of Appeals resolution of the motion for extension,petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for Review assailing CSC Resolutions Nos.00-0441 and 01-0726, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 65192.

On 22 June 2001, the Court of Appeals issued the First Resolution denying due course anddismissing CA-G.R. SP No. 65192 for petitioners failure to comply with the requirements ofSection 6, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.

On 19 September 2001, respondent filed a Motion for Execution13of CSC Resolution No. 00-0441 with the Court of Appeals to which petitioner filed a Comment on 21 October 2001.

On 12 October 2001, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the First Resolutionattaching the certified true copies of the documents enumerated in the First Resolution.The appellatecourt denied the motion for reconsideration in the Second Resolution dated29October 2001.

Hence, this petition.

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The First Resolution denied due course and dismissed petitioners petition for review for failureto append clearly legible duplicate originals or certified true copies of the following:

(a) CSC Resolution No. 00-0441 declaring respondents transfer and reassignment asvoid;

(b) Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration of CSC Resolution No. 00-0441;

(c) Respondents letter-protest with the CSC, Region 8 Office, protesting hisreassignments; and

(d) Petitioners answer, if any, to respondents letter-protest.

The Court of Appeals stated that this failure violates Section 6, Rule 43 of the Rules of Courtwhich provides:
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt9http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt9http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt9http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt10http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt10http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt11http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt11http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt11http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt12http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt12http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt12http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt13http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt13http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt13http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt12http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt11http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt10http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt9


3/55

SEC. 6. Contents of the petition.The petition for review shall (a) xxx (c) beaccompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or a certified true copy of the award,

judgment, final order or resolution appealed from, together with certified copies of suchmaterial portions of the record referred to therein and other supporting papers; xxx

Citing Section 7 of Rule 43,14the appellate court held that petitioners failure to comply with any

of the requirements under Section 6, Rule 43 justifies dismissal of the petition for review.

The Second Resolution denied petitioners motion for reconsideration on theground thatpetitioner filed the motion beyond the fifteen-day reglementary period. The pertinent portion ofthe Second Resolution reads:

Contrary to petitioners claim, as purportedly shown in her Annex A, that it was allegedlyonly on Sept. 28, 2001 that she received a copy of this Courts Resolution of June 22,2001, outrightly dismissing her petition for review for the reasons therein stated: RegistryReturn Receipt No. 89778, dated June 22, 2001, clearly shows that a copy of our June22, 2001 Resolution addressed to the Hon. Remedios L. Petilla, petitioner in CA-G.R.SP No. 65192, was sent to Purisima Street, Palo, Leyte, which could either be thepetitioners official residence or her private abode, and was received thereat on thesame date by a certain Jaime Santos. This means that the last day of the 15-dayreglementary period within which to file a Motion for Reconsideration of the aforesaidresolution under Sec. 1, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court, or to appeal therefrom to theSupreme Court expired on July 14, 2001. Inexorably, therefore, the Motion forReconsideration which was filed (posted) at the Hilongos, Leyte Post Office on Sept. 20,2001, was filed more than two (2) months after the expiry date of the reglementaryperiod within which to file a Motion for Reconsideration of the said Resolution of June22, 2001, xxx

The Issue

The sole issue in this case is whether the Court of Appeals erred in issuing the assailedresolutions. The First Resolution denied due course and dismissed outright the petition forreview for failure to comply with Section 6, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. The SecondResolution denied the motion for reconsideration for being filed out of time.

The Courts Ruling

The petition lacks merit.

The Court of Appeals correctly denied due course and dismissed the petition for review but thedenial should be on an entirely different ground.

The Court of Appeals should have denied due course and dismissed outright the petition forreview for being filed out of time. Petitioner herself admits that the petition for review was "filedafter the lapse of the 15-day period to appeal."15Petitioner reasons that her employees, namelyRuth and Celia, gave her a copy of CSC Resolution No. 01-0726 only on 29 May 2001 becausebefore that she was "at the West Coast of Leyte busy on election matters."

Petitioners justification for the late filing of the petition for review is not meritorious. Indisputably,Ruth and Celia received on 24 April 2001 a copy of CSC Resolution No. 01-0726 denying
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt14http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt14http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt14http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt15http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt15http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt15http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt15http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt14


4/55

petitioners motion for reconsideration of CSC Resolution No. 00-0441. There is also noquestion that Celia as Executive Assistant and Ruth as Receiving Clerk of the Office of theGovernor had authority to receive on behalf of petitioner notices or court processes includingCSC Resolution No. 01-0726. While petitioner physically received CSC Resolution No. 01-0726only on 29 May 2001, or 35 days from 24 Ap ril 2001,16the date of receipt of CSC ResolutionNo. 01-0726 should be 24 April 2001 for computing the period to appeal. This is precisely

because Ruth and Celia, absent any showing that petitioner did not authorize them to receiveCSC Resolution No. 01-0726, received the resolution on 24 April 2001. In short, receipt by Ruthand Celia of CSC Resolution No. 01-0726 on 24 April 2001 is deemed receipt by petitioner.In Laza v. Court of Ap peals,17where the petitioners claimed that the person who received thetrial courts decision had no authority to receive mails for Laza, we ruled:

xxx As to Leticia Ramos who had signed for the receipt of the said copy caused to bedelivered by the Postmaster at Benjamins given address, there was no showing, at all,from the records of the case, that Leticia was not a person of sufficient discretion toreceive the mail at the proper address appearing on the envelope which contained theregistered mail. Petitioners claim was that she was not Benjamins agent orauthorized representative to receive mails in his behalf. To follow petitioners

stand wo uld render nugatory th e provis ions on service by registered mail . Every

house maid or house boy or any other person other than the addressee of

registered m ail would have to have a special power-of-attorney to receive such

mail in b ehalf of the addressee. We agree with the respondent Court of Appealsfinding that petitioners excuse for the late filing of their motion for reconsideration wasrather flimsy and unrealistic. (Emphasis supplied)

In the present case, petitioner does not even claim that she did not authorize Ruth and Celia toreceive CSC Resolution No. 01-0726. Moreover, the record is barren as to any explanation whyRuth and Celia did not immediately inform petitioner about the resolution. There is alsoabsolutely no evidence showing that petitioner could not be reached or located when Ruth andCelia received the resolution. Furthermore, there is no showing that petitioner could not possibly

have a copy of CSC Resolution No. 01-0726 before the period to appeal expired. Absent in therecord is any proof that petitioner did not report for work or drop by her office for 35 days, from24 April to 29 May 2001. Thus, petitioners excuse for the late filing of the petition for review isclearly flimsy.

Perfecting an appeal within the prescribed period is not only mandatorybutalsojurisd ict ionalas held inVideogram Regulatory Board v . Court o f Appeals,18thus:

xxx There are certain procedural rules that must remain inviolable, like those setting theperiods for perfecting an appeal or filing a petition for review, for it is doctrinallyentrenched that the right to appeal is a statutory right and one who seeks to avail of thatright must comply with the statute or rules. The rules, particularly the requirements forperfecting an appeal within the reglementary period specified in the law, must be strictlyfollowed as they are considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays andfor orderly discharge of judicial business. Furthermore, the perfect ion of an appeal inthe manner and within the period permitted by law is not only m andatory but also

ju r isdic tional an d the fai lu re to per fec t the appeal ren der s the judgmen t o f the

court f in al and executory. Just as a losing party has the right to file an appeal withinthe prescribed period, the winning party also has the correlative right to enjoy the finalityof the resolution of his/her case.
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt16http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt16http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt16http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt17http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt17http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt17http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt18http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt18http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt18http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt18http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt17http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt16


5/55

These periods are carefully guarded and lawyers are well-advised to keep track of theirapplications. After all, a denial of a petition for being time-barred is a decision on themerits. (Emphasis supplied)

Since petitioner received CSC Resolution No. 01-0726 on 24 April 2001, she had until 9 May2001 to file with the Court of Appeals her appeal or motion for extension.19However, the motion

for extension to file petition for review and petition for review were both filed only on 31 May2001. Clearly, petitioner filed the motion for extension and the petition for review beyond theprescribed period. In Ditching v. Court of A ppeals,20we ruled that if a motion for extension isfiled after the lapse of the period sought to be extended, then there is no longer any period toextend. In such event, the judgment or order is already final and executory.

Petitioner cannot correctly argue that "the Court of Appeals accepted the reasons andexplanations on the circumstances why the Petition for Review was filed only on May 31,2001."21Otherwise, petitioner continues, the appellate court would have stated the late filing asanother ground for dismissing the petition for review.22

To reiterate, perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law ismandatory and jurisdictional.23Failure to interpose a timely appeal renders the assailed decisionor order final and executory and deprives the appellate body of any jurisdiction to alter the final

judgment.24The appellate court has power only to dismiss the appeal.25To rule that theappellate court accepted petitioners reason for the late filing of the petition for review, absentany exceptional circumstances to warrant such delay, is patently against settled jurisprudentialrules.26

Thus, we hold that petitioner clearly failed to perfect her appeal in the Court of Appeals. TheCourt of Appeals correctly denied due course and dismissed the petition for review.

At any rate, petitioner contends that respondents unchallenged dismissal from the roll of

employees on 4 October 1999 rendered the CSC resolutions moot and academic. Petitioneralso maintains that it is impossible to reinstate respondent to his former workstation because heis "no longer a bona fideemployee of the Provincial Government of Leyte."27

Petitioner issued the memorandum dismissing respondent while respondents protest waspending with the CSC and before the CSC declared his transfers illegal. Further, petitioner didnot manifest before the CSC about her action, which would certainly affect the result of thecase. Petitioner manifested about respondents dismissal for the first time in the Court of

Appeals.28Petitioner believes that she had no obligation to inform the CSC about her action.Petitioner insists that it is respondent as the aggrieved party who should have manifested beforethe CSC about his dismissal. Petitioner further argues that she can even raise this issue for thefirst time before this Court because the instant petition is an original action for cert iorari.

On the other hand, respondent did not challenge the validity of his dismissal in the appropriateforum and within the prescribed period. Respondent questioned the legality of his dismissal forthe first time before this Court.

Evidently, both parties are at fault. Petitioner raised for the first time before this Court the issueof whether the respondents dismissal rendered the CSC resolutions moot.29Petitioner couldhave manifested about her action or moved for the dismissal of respondents protest when itwas pending in the CSC. Had petitioner moved for the dismissal of respondents protest in the
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt19http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt19http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt19http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt20http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt20http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt20http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt21http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt21http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt21http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt22http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt22http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt22http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt23http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt23http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt23http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt24http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt24http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt24http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt25http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt25http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt25http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt26http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt26http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt26http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt27http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt27http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt27http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt28http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt28http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt28http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt29http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt29http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt29http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt29http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt28http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt27http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt26http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt25http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt24http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt23http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt22http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt21http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt20http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt19


6/55

CSC on the ground that it was already moot, the CSC could have acted on it and properlydecided the case. Moreover, petitioners action in dismissing respondent while the lattersprotest was pending in the CSC gives the impression that it was designed to render the CSCresolutions moot. On the other hand, respondent did not question the legality of his dismissal inthe appropriate forum and within the prescribed period. However, this Court believesrespondent deserves under the circumstances one last chance to defend his side and assail the

legality of his dismissal in the interest of substantial justice.

Petitioner failed to show clearly that respondent openly defied the reassignment orders. Acareful review of the records discloses that respondents absence from work from 1 June to 31

August 1999 was based on his applications for sick and vacation leave. The records also showthat it was only on 9 September 1999 that the Provincial Health Office notified respondent of thedisapproval of his leave applications. Therefore, it is safe to state that prior to 9 September 1999respondent did not know that the Provincial Health Office had denied his leave applications.Since respondent was not aware of the denial of his leave applications, respondent cannotautomatically be considered to be on absence without leave ("AWOL") for that period.

AWOL means that the employee is leaving or abandoning his post without justifiable reason andwithout notifying his employer.30In this case, petitioner gravely failed to show that respondenthad the least intention to go on AWOL. Otherwise, respondent would not even have bothered tofile his applications for sick and vacation leave. Moreover, had respondent intended to go on

AWOL, respondent would not even have protested his reassignments in the first place, andseek his reinstatement to his former workstation. Respondents protest of his reassignmentsclearly contradicts petitioners claim that respondent was on AWOL. We apply by analogy theruling in Car io v . Daoas31where we held that petitioner is "justified in not heeding herreassignment order because her basis was xxx the legal opinion of a regional office of the CivilService Commission" that the reassignment is illegal. In that case, we ordered the reinstatementof petitioner who was dropped from the rolls for her absence without leave for more than thirtydays. In this case, respondents absence was based on his leave applications, albeit denied,and not on his deliberate refusal to heed the reassignment orders.

However, no leave application supported respondents continuous absence from 1 Septemberto 4 October 1999. Furthermore, respondent had already exhausted his leave credits.Nevertheless, the records do not show that respondent intended to leave or abandon his post.On the contrary, respondent contested the validity of the reassignment order. We cannotconsider respondent on AWOL to justify petitioners act of dropping respondent from the rollsconsidering that the CSC declared void petitioners reassignment order. We considerrespondent on leave without pay from 1 September to 4 October 1999.32While respondent didnot obtain a clearance from the Provincial Health Office, which is required for leave without payin excess of one month,33this omission does notipso factoamount to being on AWOLconsidering the circumstances of this case. Respondents absence from 1 September to 4October 1999 was due principally to the pendency of his case with the CSC on the validity of hisreassignment, which the CSC subsequently declared void.

The absence of notice to respondent before his dismissal is no longer an issue sincerespondent was not on AWOL. Nevertheless, for clarity, we shall state the rule on notice.Section 35, Rule XVI of the CSC Rules, which expressly states that an employee who is on

AWOL34shall be dropped from the service after due no tice, has been amended. Section 63 ofCSC Resolution No. 983142 already allows the dismissal of a government employee who is on
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt30http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt30http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt30http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt31http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt31http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt32http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt32http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt32http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt33http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt33http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt33http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt34http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt34http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt34http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt33http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt32http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt31http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt30


7/55

AWOL without pr ior not ice.35However, the government official or employee who is on AWOLshall be informed of his separation from the service not later than five days from its effectivity.

WHEREFORE,we DISMISS the petition. The assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals areAFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Vitug, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Austria-Martinez,Corona, Carpio-Morales, Azcuna, and Tinga, JJ.,concur.Puno, J.,on leave.Panganiban, J.,on official leave.Callejo, Sr., J.,no part.

Footnotes1Under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.2

Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Dacudao with Associate Justices Romeo J.Callejo, Sr. (now Associate Justice of this Court) and Sergio L. Pestao concurring.3Under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.4Signed by Gemiliano V. Retulla, Provincial Health Officer II; and noted by Catalino B.Petilla, Provincial Government Assistant Department Head, and petitioner.5Section 23 (q), Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of EO 292 andOther Pertinent Civil Service Laws provides:

(q) xxxAn officer or employee in the Civil Service shall be considered habitually absent ifhe incurs unauthorized absences exceeding the allowable 2.5 days monthlyleave credit under the Leave Law for at least 3 months in a semester or at least 3consecutive months during the year.xxx In case of claim of ill-health, heads of departments of agencies areencouraged to verify the validity of such claim, and if not satisfied with the reasongiven, should disapprove the application for sick leave. On the other hand, casesof employees who absent themselves from work before approval of theapplication should be disapproved outright.

6Section 35, Rule XVI of the CSC Omnibus Rules provides:Section 35. Officers and employees who are absent for at least thirty (30) dayswithout approved leave are considered on Absence Without Leave (AWOL) andshall be dropped from the service after due notice. However, when theexigencies of the service require his immediate presence and he fails/refuses toreturn to the service, the head of office may drop him from the service even priorto the expiration of the thirty (30) day period abovestated. (Emphasis supplied)

7Composed of Chairman Corazon Alma G. De Leon and Commissioner Jose F.Erestain, Jr.8Rollo, p. 29.9Ibid., pp. 30-38.10Composed of Commissioners Jose F. Erestain, Jr. and J. Waldemar V. Valmores.11Rollo, pp. 40-42. On 7 July 2000, the CSC already issued Resolution No. 001550denying the motion for reconsideration. This Court will consider CSC Resolution No. 01-0726 only.12Rollo, pp. 43-47.
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt35http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt35http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt35http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt1http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt1http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt2http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt2http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt3http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt3http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt4http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt4http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt5http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt5http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt6http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt6http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt7http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt7http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt8http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt8http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt9http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt9http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt10http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt10http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt11http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt11http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt12http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt12http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt12http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt11http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt10http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt9http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt8http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt7http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt6http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt5http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt4http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt3http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt2http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt1http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#fnt35


8/55

13CA Rollo, p. 110. The motion for execution was denied in the Second Resolution.14Section 7, Rule 43 provides:

SEC. 7. Effect of failure to compl with requirements.The failure of the petitionerto comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of thedocket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition,and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition

shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.15CA Rollo, p. 2.16Rollo, p. 43.17G.R. No. 122427,13 March 1997, 269 SCRA 654.18G.R. No. 106564,28 November 1996, 265 SCRA 50.19Section 4 of Rule 43 provides:

SEC. 4. Period of appeal.The appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) daysfrom notice of the award, judgment, final order or resolution, xxx or of the denialof petitioners motion for new trial or reconsideration duly filed in accordance withthe governing law of the court or agency a quo. Upon proper motion and thepayment of the full amount of the docket fee before the expiration of thereglementary period, the Court of Appeals may grant an additional period of

fifteen (15) days only within which to file the petition for review. No furtherextension shall be granted except for the most compelling reason and in no caseto exceed fifteen (15) days.

20G.R. No. 109834,18 October 1996, 263 SCRA 343.21Rollo, p. 111.22Ibid., p. 112.23Republic v. Court of Appeals,G.R. No. 132425, 31 August 1999, 313 SCRA376;Demata v. Court of Appeals,G.R. No. 127697, 25 February 1999, 303 SCRA690;United Placement International v. NLRC,G.R. No. 103370, 17 June 1996, 257SCRA 404;Aguilar v. Blanco, No. L-32392,31 August 1988, 165 SCRA 180.24Paramount Vinyl Products Corp. v. NLRC,G.R. 81200, 17 October 1990, 190 SCRA525. See alsoCeniza v. Court of Appeals,G.R. No. 95296, 3 February 1993, 218 SCRA

390.25Ceniza v. Court of Appeals,G.R. No. 95296, 3 February 1993, 218 SCRA 390.26Trans International v. Court of Appeals,G.R. No. 128421, 12 October 1998, 297SCRA 718.27Rollo, p. 144.28Ibid., p. 117.29While she manifested about respondents dismissal before the Court of Appeals,petitioner raised this issue for the first time before this court.30City Government of Makati v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 131392, 6 February2002, 376 SCRA 248.31G.R. No. 144493,9 April 2002, 380 SCRA 355.32Section 56 of CSC Resolution No. 983142 provides:

Sec. 56. Leave without pay.All absences of an official or employee in excessof his accumulated vacation or sick leave credits earned shall be without pay.xxx

33Section 57 of CSC Resolution No. 983142 provides:Sec. 57. Limit of leave without pay.Leave without pay not exceeding one yearmay be granted, in addition to the vacation and/or sick leave earned. Leavewithout pay in excess of one month shall require the clearance of the properhead of department or agency.

34Absent for at least thirty days without approved leave.
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt13http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt13http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt14http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt14http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt15http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt15http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt16http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt16http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt17http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/mar1997/gr_122427_1997.htmlhttp://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt18http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/nov1996/gr_106564_1996.htmlhttp://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt19http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt19http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt20http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/oct1996/gr_109834_1996.htmlhttp://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt21http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt21http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt22http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt22http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt23http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/aug1999/gr_132425_1999.htmlhttp://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/feb1999/gr_127697_1999.htmlhttp://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/jun1996/gr_103370_1996.htmlhttp://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/aug1988/gr_l_32392_1988.htmlhttp://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt24http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/oct1990/gr_81200_1990.htmlhttp://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1993/feb1993/gr_95296_1993.htmlhttp://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt25http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1993/feb1993/gr_95296_1993.htmlhttp://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt26http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/oct1998/gr_128421_1998.htmlhttp://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt27http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt27http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt28http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt28http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt29http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt29http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt30http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/feb2002/gr_131392_2002.htmlhttp://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt31http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/gr_144493_2002.htmlhttp://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt32http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt32http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt33http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt33http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt34http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt34http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt34http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt33http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt32http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/gr_144493_2002.htmlhttp://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt31http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/feb2002/gr_131392_2002.htmlhttp://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt30http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt29http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt28http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt27http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/oct1998/gr_128421_1998.htmlhttp://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt26http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1993/feb1993/gr_95296_1993.htmlhttp://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt25http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1993/feb1993/gr_95296_1993.htmlhttp://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/oct1990/gr_81200_1990.htmlhttp://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt24http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/aug1988/gr_l_32392_1988.htmlhttp://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/jun1996/gr_103370_1996.htmlhttp://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/feb1999/gr_127697_1999.htmlhttp://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/aug1999/gr_132425_1999.htmlhttp://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt23http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt22http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt21http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/oct1996/gr_109834_1996.htmlhttp://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt20http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt19http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/nov1996/gr_106564_1996.htmlhttp://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt18http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/mar1997/gr_122427_1997.htmlhttp://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt17http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt16http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt15http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt14http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt13


9/55

35Section 63 of CSC Resolution No. 983142 provides:Sec. 63. Effect of absence without approved leave.An official or an employeewho is continuously absent without approved leave for at least thirty (30)calendar days shall be considered on absence without official leave (AWOL) andshall be separated from the service or dropped from the rolls without prior notice.He shall, however, be informed, at his address appearing on his 201 files of his

separation from the service, not later than five (5) days from its effectivity.xxx (Emphasis supplied)
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt35http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt35http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_150792_2004.html#rnt35


10/55

EN BANC

G.R. No. 172623 March 3, 2010

COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS, represented herein by its Secretary HON. ARTURO L.TIU,Petitioner,

vs.CELSO M. PALER,1Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

CORONA, J.:

This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the decision2datedDecember 20, 2005 and resolution dated April 27, 2005 rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) inCA-G.R. SP No. 90360.

The facts are undisputed.

Respondent Celso M. Paler was a Supervising Legislative Staff Officer II (SG-24)3with the TechnicalSupport Service of the Commission on Appointments.4On April 8, 2003, he submitted a request forvacation leave for 74 working daysfrom August 1, 2003 to November 14, 2003.5In amemorandum dated April 22, 2003, Ramon C. Nghuatco, Director III of Technical Support Service,submitted to the Commission Secretary his comments/recommendation on Paler's application:

"1. The request to go on leave of Mr. Paler is contingent upon the completion of his variousCommittee assignments.

2. We have already acted favorably on his Leave Applications for 09 June 2003 - 30 July2003, which may already cover his reasons enumerated under items 1-5.

3. Mr. Paler's Sick Leave Application shall require a medical certificate from the attendingphysician advising him of the need to undergo medical operation and the treatment andrecuperation period therefor.

Mr. Paler's Application for Leave may be acted upon depending on the completion of hiswork load and submission of the medical certificate."6(Emphasis supplied)

Since he already had an approved leave from June 9 to July 30, 2003, Paler left for the UnitedStates on June 8, 2003, without verifying whether his application for leave (for August 1November14, 2003) was approved or denied.

In a letter dated September 16, 2003, the Commission Chairman informed Paler that he was beingdropped from the roll of employees effective said date, due to his continuous 30-day absencewithout leave and in accordance with Section 63, Civil Service Commission (CSC) MemorandumCircular No. 14, s. 1999.7Paler's son received the letter on September 23, 2003.8

Paler moved for reconsideration but this was denied on February 20, 2004, on the ground that it wasfiled beyond the 15-day reglementary period.9The denial was received by Paler's son on March 18,2004.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt1


11/55

On appeal, the CSC reversed and set aside the Commission Chairman's decision dated September16, 2003 per resolution 04-1214 dated November 9, 2004.10The dispositive portion of the resolutionread:

WHEREFORE, the appeal of Celso M. Paler is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the decision datedSeptember 16, 2003 of Commission on Appointments Chairman Franklin M. Drilon dropping Celso

M. Paler from the rolls; and the decision dated February 20, 2004 denying his motion forreconsideration are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. It is directed that Celso M. Paler be immediatelyreinstated as Committee Secretary of the Commission on Appointments and shall be considered tobe on leave with pay until the exhaustion of his vacation leave credits.

Quezon City, Nov. 09, 2004.11

The Commission filed a motion for reconsideration but this was denied by the CSC per resolutionNo. 050833 dated June 23, 2005.

This constrained petitioner to file with the CA a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules ofCourt.

Since Paler had in the meantime already reached the compulsory age of retirement on July 28, 2005and was no longer entitled to reinstatement, the CA affirmed with modification CSC resolution 04-1214 dated November 9, 2004 and resolution No. 050833 dated June 23, 2005. The dispositiveportion of the assailed decision dated December 20, 2005 provided:

WHEREFORE, the assailed Resolutions of the Civil Service Commission are AFFIRMED with theMODIFICATION that the order of reinstatement is DELETED. In lieu thereof, Paler should beawarded backwages, retirement benefits and other privileges that accrued to him from the time of hisdismissal up to the date of his retirement.

SO ORDERED.12

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but this was denied by the CA in the assailed resolutiondated April 27, 2005.

Hence, this petition based on the following grounds:

A. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING DUE COURSE TOTHE APPEAL OF RESPONDENT PALER WITH THE RESPONDENT CIVIL SERVICECOMMISSION DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT WAS FILED OUT OF TIME.

B. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE LEAVEAPPLICATIONS OF RESPONDENT PALER WAS DEEMED APPROVED ON A MISTAKEN

INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 49, RULE XVI OF THE OMNIBUS RULE ON LEAVE AS AMENDED.13

Petitioner's contentions are basically the same as those it presented to the CSC14and the CA,15viz.:(1) the CSC should not have entertained Paler's appeal since it was filed beyond the 15-dayreglementary period; there were no meritorious reasons to relax the procedural rules, specially sincethere was bad faith and misrepresentation on Paler's part in filing staggered applications for leave;(2) the Commission Chairman's decision to drop Paler from the roll of employees was in accord withSection 63 of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 14, series of 1999 and (3) Paler's application for leave
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt10


12/55

was not "deemed approved" as petitioner acted on his application by holding it in abeyance in viewof the contingencies of his work and the submission of a medical certificate.16

In his comment, Paler, aside from arguing that the CA did not commit any error in sustaining theCSC resolutions, also assails Atty. Arturo L. Tiu's authority to file the petition and sign the verificationand certification of non-forum shopping on behalf of the Commission Chairman.17

The CSC, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), maintains the correctness of theCSC and CA judgments.

Issues

This petition involves both procedural and substantive issues.

On the procedural aspect, Paler questions the authority of the Commission Secretary to file thepetition and sign the verification and certification of non-forum shopping in behalf of the CommissionChairman. On the other hand, the Commission disputes the CSC's grant of Paler's appeal despitehaving been filed beyond the reglementary period.

On the substantive aspect, was Paler's application for leave "deemed approved" within the purviewof Section 49, Rule XVI of the Omnibus Rules on Leave?

Authority to File Petition

First, we tackle Atty. Tiu's authority to file the petition and sign the verification and certification ofnon-forum shopping.

The petitioner in this case is the Commission on Appointments, a government entity created by theConstitution, and headed by its Chairman.18There was no need for the Chairman himself to sign theverification. Its representative, lawyeror any person who personally knew the truth of the facts

alleged in the petition could sign the verification.19With regard, however, to the certification of non-forum shopping, the established rule is that it must be executed by the plaintiff or any of the principalparties and not by counsel.20In this case, Atty. Tiu failed to show that he was specifically authorizedby the Chairman to sign the certification of non-forum shopping, much less file the petition in hisbehalf. There is nothing on record to prove such authority. Atty. Tiu did not even bother to controvertPalers allegation of his lack of authority. This renders the petitiondismissible.21

Furthermore, the petition is bereft of merit as it merely restates the arguments presented before theCSC and CA. It does not advance any cogent reason that will convince this Court to deviate from therulings of both tribunals.

The Issue of Late Filing

Section 72 of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, s. 1999,22provides for the period of appeal fornon-disciplinary actions, to wit:

Section 72. When and Where to File. - A decision or ruling of a department or agency may beappealed within fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof by the party adversely affected to the CivilService Regional Office and finally, to the Commission Proper within the same period.

x x x
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt16


13/55

Paler's son received the letter from the Commission Chairman denying Palers motion forreconsideration on March 18, 2004. Thus, Palers had until April 2, 2004 within which to file hisappeal with the CSC. It was filed, however, only on April 5, 2004.23Nevertheless, the CSCentertained the appeal in the interest of substantial justice.24

We agree with the CSC. We uphold its decision to relax the procedural rules because Paler's appeal

was meritorious. This is not the first time that the Court has upheld such exercise of discretion.In Rosales, Jr. v. Mijares25involving Section 49(a) of the CSC Revised Rules of Procedure, the Courtruled:

On the contention of the petitioner that the appeal of the respondent to the CSC was made beyondthe period therefor under Section 49(a) of the CSC Revised Rules of Procedure, the CSC correctlyruled that:

Movant claims that Mijares appeal was filed way beyond the reglementary period for filing appeals.He, thus, contends that the Commission should not have given due course to said appeal.

The Commission need not delve much on the dates when Mijares was separated from the service

and when he assailed his separation. Suffice it to state that the Commission found his appealmeritorious. 1avvphi1This being the case, procedural rules need not be strictly observed. Thisprinciple was explained by in the case of Mauna vs. CSC, 232 SCRA 388, where the Supreme Courtruled, to wit:

"Assuming for the sake of argument that the petitioners appeal was filed out of time,it is within thepower of this Court to temper rigid rules in favor of substantial justice. While it is desirablethat the Rules of Court be faithfully and even meticulously observed, courts should not be sostrict about procedural lapses that do not really impair the proper administration of justice. Ifthe rules are intended to ensure the orderly conduct of litigation, it is because of the higherobjective they seek which is the protection of substantive rights of the parties.As held by theCourt in a number of cases:

x x x

It bears stressing that the case before the CSC involves the security of tenure of a public officersacrosanctly protected by the Constitution. Public interest requires a resolution of the merits of theappeal instead of dismissing the same based on a strained and inordinate application of Section49(a) of the CSC Revised Rules of Procedure.26(Emphasis supplied)

Constantino-David v. Pangandaman-Gania27likewise sustained the CSC when it modified anotherwise final and executory resolution and awarded backwages to the respondent, in the interestof justice and fair play. The Court stated

No doubt, the Civil Service Commission was in the legitimate exercise of its mandate under Sec. 3,Rule I, of theRevised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service that"[a]dministrative investigations shall be conducted without necessarily adhering strictly to thetechnical rules of procedure and evidence applicable to judicial proceedings." This authority isconsistent with its powers and functions to "[p]rescribe, amend and enforce rules and regulations forcarrying into effect the provisions of the Civil Service Law and other pertinent laws" being the centralpersonnel agency of the Government.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt23


14/55

Furthermore, there are special circumstances in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair playthat warrant such liberal attitude on the part of the CSC and a compassionate like-mindeddiscernment by this Court. x x x28

When substantial justice dictates it, procedural rules may be relaxed in order to arrive at a justdisposition of a case. The purpose behind limiting the period of appeal is to avoid unreasonable

delay in the administration of justice and to put an end to controversies. A one-day delay, as in thiscase, does not justify denial of the appeal where there is absolutely no indication of intent to delay

justice on the part of Paler29and the pleading is meritorious on its face.

Petitioner harps on Paler's alleged bad faith and misrepresentation in filing his previous applicationsfor leave. However, as correctly found by the CSC and CA, the basis for Paler's dismissal was hiscontinuous absence without leave, not bad faith and misrepresentation. The CSC even noted thatPaler never misrepresented or misled petitioner as to where he was spending his vacation leave. Heclearly stated in his application for leave dated April 17, 2003 that he was spending it not only in thePhilippines but also in the U.S.30According to the CA, "to utilize Paler's alleged misrepresentation inhis previously approved applications for leave as basis for his separation from work, even in theabsence of opportunity for him to controvert the matter, would constitute a violation of the

fundamental requirements of fairness and equity and the constitutional guarantee of dueprocess."31The Court finds no reason to deviate from the findings of both the CSC and CA, giventhat they concur with each other and should be accorded great weight and respect.32

The CSC and CA were also correct in ruling that Paler could not be considered absent without leave(AWOL) for the period of August 1, 2003 to November 14, 2003.

Paler was dropped from the roll of employees pursuant to Section 63, Rule XVI of the OmnibusRules on Leave:

An official or an employee who is continuously absent without approved leavefor at least thirty(30) calendar days shall be considered on absence without official leave (AWOL) and shall beseparated from the service or dropped from the rolls without prior notice. He shall, however, beinformed, at his address appearing on his 201 files of his separation from the service, not later thanfive (5) days from its effectivity. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

AWOL means that the employee has left or abandoned his post for a continuous period of thirty (30)calendar days or more without any justifiable reason and notice to his employer.33

The bone of contention in this case is whether or not Paler had an approved leave.

Section 49, Rule XVI of the Omnibus Rules on Leave requires that an application for leave should beacted upon within 5 working days from receipt, otherwise, such application is deemedapproved.34The CSC interpreted said provision in this wise

It is explicit from the aforequoted rule that an application for leave of absence which had not beenacted uponeither by approving or disapprovingby the head of agency or his/her authorizedrepresentative within five (5) working days from the date of its filing shall be deemedapproved.35(Italics supplied)

The CSC also ruled that "Section 49 calls for a specific action to be done by the head of the agencyor his duly authorized representative on the application for leave filed which is either to approve or todeny the same."36
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt28


15/55

Being the central agency mandated to "prescribe, amend, and enforce rules and regulations forcarrying into effect the provisions of the Civil Service Law and other pertinent laws," the CSC has thepower to interpret its own rules and any phrase contained in them, with its interpretation significantlybecoming part of the rules themselves.37The Court has consistently yielded and accorded greatrespect to the interpretation by administrative agencies of their own rules unless there is an error oflaw, abuse of power, lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion clearly conflicting with the letter

and spirit of the law.38

The CA added its own reading of Section 49 which the Court now sustains:

x x x The action contemplated therein connotes a clear and explicit exercise of discretion. It pertainsto an absolute and unequivocal "approval" or "disapproval" of the request for leave and not onewhich is merely "recommendatory" in nature. If the rule were otherwise, the authority to act on theapplication for leave would not have been vested on the head of the agency or the CA [Commissionon Appointments] Chairman's authorized representative. Needless to state, the purpose of theprovision is for the applicant to be immediately informed of the status of his application, whether ithas been approved or denied, so that he can act accordingly. x x x39

Clearly, Atty. Nghuatco's memorandum did not cover the action contemplated by Section 49. Forone, it did not bear the imprimaturof the Commission Chairman (or his duly authorizedrepresentative) who was the proper party to grant or deny the application, as dictated by Section 52of the Omnibus Rules on Leave.40For another, it only submitted to the Commission Secretary Atty.Nghuatco's comments and/or recommendations on Paler's application. It was merely preliminary anddid not propose any definitive action (i.e.,approval or disapproval) on Paler's application, and simplyrecommended what action to take. It was obviously not controlling and the Chairman could haveagreed or disagreed with the recommended action. In fact, the memorandum clearly provided thatPaler's request was still to be referred to the Legal Service for comment,41and that the application"(could) be acted upon depending on the completion of his work load and submission of the medicalcertificate."42These circumstances plainly meant that further action was yet to be made on theapplication. And since there was no final approval or disapproval of Paler's application within 5working days from receipt as required by Section 49, the application was deemed approved. Paler,

therefore, could not be considered on AWOL.

All told, the CA committed no error in affirming, with modification, CSC Resolution Nos. 04-1214dated November 9, 2004 and 050833 dated June 23, 2005.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.

RENATO C. CORONA

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

REYNATO S. PUNOChief Justice

ANTONIO T. CARPIO CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#fnt37


16/55

Associate Justice Associate Justice

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.Associate Justice

(No part)ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA*

Associate Justice

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTROAssociate Justice

ARTURO D. BRIONAssociate Justice

(On official leave)DIOSDADO M. PERALTA**

Associate Justice

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLOAssociate Justice

LUCAS P. BERSAMINAssociate Justice

ROBERTO A. ABADAssociate Justice

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.Associate Justice

JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZAssociate Justice

JOSE CATRAL MENDOZAAssociate Justice

C E R T I F I C A T I O NPursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the aboveDecision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinionof the Court.REYNATO S. PUNOChief Justice

Footnotes*No part.**On official leave.1The Court of Appeals and the Civil Service Commission were impleaded as respondents but theirexclusion is proper under Section 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.2Penned by Associate Justice Rebecca de Guia-Salvador and concurred in by Presiding JusticeRuben T. Reyes (now a retired Member of this Court) and Associate Justice Aurora Santiago-Lagman (retired).3The Civil Service Commission erroneously denominated Palers position as "Committee Secretary."4The Commission on Appointments shall be hereafter referred to as the "Commission."5Rollo, p. 132.6Id., p. 135.7Id., p. 123.8Ibid.9Id., p. 124, Resolution/Letter dated February 20, 2004 of the Chairman of the Commission.10Penned by Civil Service Commission Chairman Karina Constantino-David, and concurred in byCommissioner J. Waldemar V. Valmores. Commissioner Cesar D. Buenaflor inhibited himself fromthe case.11Rollo, p. 113.12Id., p. 43.13Id., pp. 21-22.14Id., pp. 50-56, 59-63.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt1


17/55

15Id., pp. 71-80.16Id., pp. 22-27.17Id., pp. 181-183.18Section 18, Article VI, 1987 Constitution.19LDP Marketing, Inc. v. Monter, G.R. No. 159653, 25 January 2006, 480 SCRA 137, 141.20Gutierrez v. Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment, G.R. No. 142248, 16

December 2004, 447 SCRA 107, 117.21Metropolitan Cebu Water District (MCWD) v. Adala, G.R. No. 168914, 4 July 2007, 526 SCRA465, 474.22Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.23April 2, 2004 was a Friday; the appeal was filed on April 5, 2004, a Monday.24Rollo, p. 111.25G.R. No. 154095, 17 November 2004, 442 SCRA 532.26Id., pp. 547-549.27G.R. No. 156039, 14 August 2003, 409 SCRA 80.28Id, p. 88; see also Bunsay v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. NO. 153188, 14 August 2007, 530SCRA 68.29Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation v. Angara, G.R. NO. 142937, 15 November 2005,475 SCRA 41, 52.30Rollo, p. 118; CSC Resolution No. 05-8333 dated June 23, 2005, p. 4.31Id., p. 42; CA Decision dated December 20, 2005, p. 12.32Civil Service Commission v. Ledesma, G.R. No. 154521, 30 September 2005, 471 SCRA 589,605-606.33Binay v. Odea,G.R. No. 163683, 8 June 2007, 524 SCRA 248, 258.34Sec. 49. Period within which to act on leave application. - Whenever the application for leave ofabsence, including terminal leave, is not acted upon by the head of agency or his duly authorizedrepresentative within five (5) working days after receipt thereof, the application for leave of absenceshall be deemed approved.35Rollo, p. 112; CSC Resolution 04-1214 dated November 9, 2004, p. 9.36Id, p. 118; CSC Resolution No. 05-8333 dated June 23, 2005, p. 4.37City Government of Makati v. Civil Service Commission , G.R. No. 131392, 6 February 2002, 376

SCRA 248, 264.38Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. v. International Communication Corporation, G.R.No. 135992, 31 January 2006, 481 SCRA 163, 167.39Rollo, p. 39; CA Decision dated December 20, 2005, p. 9.40Section 52 states, "[L]eave of absence for any reason other than illness of an official or employeeor of any member of his immediate family must be contingent upon the needs of the service. Hence,the grant of vacation leave shall be at the discretion of the head of department/agency."41Rollo, p. 134.42Id., p. 135.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_172623_2010.html#rnt15


18/55

SECOND DIVISION

A.M. No. P-08-2523 April 7, 2009(Formerly OCA-I.P.I. No. 08-2872-P)

ATTY. MARLYDS L. ESTARDO-TEODORO,Complainant,

vs.CARLOS S. SEGISMUNDO,Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

BRION, J.:

This resolves the administrative caseinitiated through a Complaint-Memorandum dated June 21,2007 filed by Atty. Marlyds L. Estardo-Teodoro1(complainant) with the Office of the Court

Administrator-Legal Office (OCA)against Mr. Carlos S. Segismun2(respondent) for dishonesty,violations of reasonable office rules and regulations, and the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel.

The ANTECEDENTS

The complaint-memorandum cites the following incidents:

A. The Respondents Encashment of a Postal Money Order

It appears that the standing office procedure in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Fernando Cityfor the implementation of all summons, orders, executions and other processes accompanied bymoney orders from other RTCs and MTCs, is to indorse these processes to the Clerk of Court/OIC-Clerk of Court for recording; money orders must be signed by the latter prior to encashment.

Despite this standing procedure, the respondent appears to have encashed a postal money order

without the requisite endorsement. When confronted by Atty. Jose Elmer Y. Teodoro, Officer inCharge of the Offi

Date post:	14-Oct-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lem-onitsuaf
View:	117 times
Download:	1 times

AWOL, SC Decisions

Documents