Facts:

The case involves Elenita S. Binay, in her capacity as Mayor of the City of Makati, along with Mario Rodriguez and Priscilla Ferrolino as petitioners, against Emerita Odeaa as the respondent. The events leading to this case began on January 16, 1980, when Emerita Odeaa was employed as a teacher at the Makati Nursery School. She initially served as a contractual employee until July 30, 1992, and subsequently became a casual employee from July 1992 until November 1996. By 1996, she held the position of Clerk 1 and was assigned to the Library Department of Makati High School.

On June 1, 2000, Priscilla Ferrolino, acting as an education consultant, summoned Odeaa to discuss her alleged failure to report for work since November 1999. Odeaa denied the accusations and presented her employee logbook as evidence of her attendance, but Ferrolino dismissed her explanation. The following day, Feliciana A. Rodriguez, Officer-In-Charge of the Timekeeper Section, informed Mario Rodriguez...

Facts:

Employment History and Background

• The respondent began her employment in the Makati Nursery School as a teacher on January 16, 1980.
• She served as a contractual employee until July 30, 1992, and subsequently as a casual employee from July 1992 until November 1996.
• By 1996, the respondent held the position of Clerk 1 and was detailed at the Library Department of the Makati High School.

Events Leading to the Dispute

• On June 1, 2000, petitioner Priscilla Ferrolino, acting as education consultant, called the respondent to her office to question her alleged failure to report for work starting November 1999.
• The respondent denied any intentional absence and presented her log book as evidence of regular attendance.
• On June 2, 2000, Feliciana A. Rodriguez, Officer-In-Charge of the Timekeeper Section, communicated to petitioner Mario R. Rodriguez that the respondent had not reported for duty since November 10, 1999, recommending immediate action.
• On June 8, 2000, former Mayor Elenita S. Binay issued a memorandum informing the respondent that, effective at the close of office on May 15, 2000, she was deemed dropped from the roll of employees due to absences without official leave (AWOL).
• The respondent moved for reconsideration, which was denied, prompting her to appeal to the Civil Service Commission (CSC).

Proceedings Before the Civil Service Commission

• On May 29, 2001, the CSC, through Resolution No. 010962, ruled that the dropping of the respondent from the rolls was not supported by evidence.
• The CSC found that the respondent had indeed reported for work from November 1999 to May 2000, notwithstanding intermittent absences that did not constitute a continuous absence of at least thirty working days.
• The personal attendance sheet, which recorded the respondent’s name, signature, arrival, and departure times, was deemed compliant with CSC Memorandum Circular No. 21, Series of 1991, and was corroborated by her immediate supervisor.
• It was also noted that the respondent’s receipt of salary for the disputed period indicated her actual attendance.
• The CSC reinstated the respondent to her former position with the condition that she be paid back salaries for the period from dismissal up to reinstatement.
• On November 18, 2002, PSC Resolution No. 021491 denied the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration and reaffirmed the earlier CSC resolution.

Proceedings at the Court of Appeals and Issues Raised Therein

• Petitioners elevated the case to the Court of Appeals under CA-G.R. SP No. 74411.
• On May 14, 2004, the CA affirmed with modifications the CSC resolutions, specifically modifying the payment of back salaries to a maximum period of five years—from the effective date of dismissal (May 16, 2000) up to reinstatement.
• Petitioners further contended that:
• The CSC improperly accepted the respondent’s personal attendance sheet over the official Time Sheet.
• The certifications by the respondent’s immediate supervisor were unreliable given her subsequent retraction in a later letter.
• There existed evidence suggesting that the respondent was enrolled in a two-year Advertising course at the Philippine Women’s University, casting doubt on her alleged continuous attendance.

Issue:

Evidentiary Issues

• Whether the CSC erred in giving paramount weight to the respondent’s personal attendance sheet as the official record in lieu of the formal Daily Time Record (DTR) maintained by the City Government of Makati.
• Whether the CSC improperly relied on the certifications issued by the respondent’s immediate supervisor, particularly in light of the supervisor’s later retraction stating she did not personally know the respondent.

Questions on the Nature of the Disciplinary Grounds

• Whether the evidence supports that the respondent incurred a continuous absence for at least thirty (30) working days, thereby constituting AWOL as mandated by Section 63, Rule XVI of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules.
• Whether the computation and award of back salaries, as ordered by the CSC and modified by the CA, were legally proper given the circumstances surrounding the respondent’s attendance record.

Jurisdictional and Procedural Issues

• Whether the issues raised, specifically those requiring an assessment of evidentiary weight and credibility, constitute questions of fact rather than questions of law under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
• Whether this Court has jurisdiction to review and re-weigh factual determinations made by the CSC and CA in a petition for review on certiorari.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)