Civil Service Rules on AWOL [G.R. No. 150792. March 3, 2004.] HON. REMEDIOS L. PETILLA, petitioner, vs.

COURT OF APPEALS (Former Thirteenth Division), CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and JERIEL L. ARDIENTE, respondents. The absence of notice to respondent before his dismissal is no longer an issue since respondent 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 AWOL ( Absent for at least thirty days without approved leave) shall be dropped from the service after due notice, has been amended. Section 63 of CSC Resolution No. 983142 already allows the dismissal of a government employee who is on AWOL without prior notice. ( Section 63 of CSC Resolution No. 983142 provides: Sec. 63. Effect of absence without approved leave. An official or an employee who is continuously absent without approved leave for at least thirty (30) calendar days shall be considered on absence without official leave (AWOL) and shall 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 xxx xxx (Emphasis supplied)

However, the government official or employee who is on AWOL shall be informed of his separation from the service not later than five days from its effectivity.

[G.R. No. 172623. March 3, 2010.] COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS, represented herein by its Secretary HON. ARTURO L. TIU, petitioner, vs. CELSO M. PALER, 1 respondent. 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 be acted upon within 5 working days from receipt, otherwise, such application is deemed approved. 34 The CSC interpreted said provision in this wise EaTCSA

It is explicit from the aforequoted rule that an application for leave of absence which had not been acted upon either by approving or disapproving by the head of agency or his/her authorized representative within five (5) working days from the date of its filing shall be deemed approved. 35 (Italics supplied) The CSC also ruled that "Section 49 calls for a specific action to be done by the head of the agency or his duly authorized representative on the application for leave filed which is either to approve or to deny the same." 36 Being the central agency mandated to "prescribe, amend, and enforce rules and regulations for carrying into effect the provisions of the Civil Service Law and other pertinent laws," the CSC has the power to interpret its own rules and any phrase contained in them, with its interpretation significantly becoming part of the rules themselves. 37 The Court has consistently yielded and accorded great respect to the interpretation by administrative agencies of their own rules unless there is an error of law, 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: caAICE . . . The action contemplated therein connotes a clear and explicit exercise of discretion. It pertains to an absolute and unequivocal "approval" or "disapproval" of the request for leave and not one which is merely "recommendatory" in nature. If the rule were otherwise, the authority to act on the application for leave would not have been vested on the head of the agency or the CA [Commission on Appointments] Chairman's authorized representative. Needless to state, the purpose of the provision is for the applicant to be immediately informed of the status of his application, whether it has been approved or denied, so that he can act accordingly. . . . 39 Clearly, Atty. Nghuatco's memorandum did not cover the action contemplated by Section 49. For one, it did not bear the imprimatur of the Commission Chairman (or his duly authorized representative) who was the proper party to grant or deny the application, as dictated by Section 52 of the Omnibus Rules on Leave. 40 For another, it only submitted to the Commission Secretary Atty. Nghuatco's comments and/or recommendations on Paler's application. It was merely preliminary and did not propose any definitive action (i.e., approval or disapproval) on Paler's application, and simply recommended what action to take. It was obviously not controlling and the Chairman could have agreed or disagreed with the recommended action. In fact, the memorandum clearly provided that Paler's request was still to be referred to the Legal Service for comment, 41 and that the application "(could) be acted upon depending on the completion of his work load and submission of the medical certificate." 42 These circumstances plainly meant that further action was yet to be made on the application. And since there was no final approval or disapproval of Paler's application within 5 working days from receipt as required by Section 49, the application was

deemed approved. Paler, therefore, could not be considered on AWOL. SaDICE All told, the CA committed no error in affirming, with modification, CSC Resolution Nos. 04-1214 dated November 9, 2004 and 050833 dated June 23, 2005.

Rules On leave [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. Under Civil Service Rules, the taking and the approval of leaves of absence follow a formal process, viz., a leave must be duly approved by the authorized officer (Omnibus Rules on Leave, Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 40, series of 1998; See: Sections 50-54 of the Omnibus Rules).

[A.M. No. P-01-1529. January 23, 2002.] ATTY. GISELLE G. TALION, Clerk of Court VI, Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Panabo, Davao del Norte, complainant, vs. ESTEBAN P. AYUPAN, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Office of the Clerk of Court, Davao del Norte, respondent. ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE; CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES WHO ARE ABSENT FOR AT LEAST 30 DAYS WITHOUT LEAVE SHALL BE DROPPED FROM THE SERVICE. [C]ivil service employees who are absent for at least 30 days without leave are considered absent without leave (AWOL) and shall be dropped from the service after due notice. The notice contemplated by this rule is not jurisdictional in nature and failure to give such notice by the appropriate government office does not prevent the dropping of the employee concerned from the government service. Staying away from one's regular employment in the government or remaining on leave without proper approval is something that an employee can hardly be unaware of. [G.R. No. 131392. February 6, 2002.] CITY GOVERNMENT OF MAKATI CITY represented herein by JEJOMAR C. BINAY in his capacity as Mayor of Makati City, petitioner, vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and EUSEBIA R. GALZOTE, respondents Why should public service be prejudiced by her unexcused failure to apply for a legally required leave of absence? It must be stressed that approval of a leave application is not automatic, but is subject to the discretion of competent authorities, depending on the exigencies of the service. So, how can a leave be ever automatic, especially here where no application was even filed? Approval cannot be presumed.