G.R. No. 215585 - In the Matter of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Data vs. De Lima

Eusebia R. Galzote was employed as a clerk (later designated as Clerk III) in the City Government of Makati’s Department of Engineering and Public Works.
With limited income, she supported her children and led a modest life prior to the incident.

On or about September 6, 1991, Galzote was arrested without a warrant on a charge of kidnapping with serious physical injuries and was immediately detained.
The criminal case (Criminal Case No. 88357) was docketed before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Metro Manila, and her detention lasted for more than three years.
Three days after her arrest (on September 9, 1991), the City Government of Makati, represented by Mayor Jejomar Binay, informed her that she was placed under suspension until the final disposition of her criminal case, thereby effectively excusing her from reporting for work.

Despite the initial suspension order, the City Government later changed its policy without notifying Galzote.

On January 21, 1993, while she was still incarcerated, the government dropped her from the rolls on the ground that she had been absent without official leave for more than one year.

There was no prior notice or opportunity afforded to Galzote to regularize her absence, such as by filing an application for leave of absence.

Galzote was eventually acquitted of the charges on September 22, 1994, following the trial court’s determination of lack of evidence.
Upon her release, on October 19, 1994, she immediately requested the lifting of her suspension and reinstatement to her position, relying on the original suspension order that promised her reinstatement after the termination of her case.
The City Government turned her away, prompting her to seek relief before the Civil Service Commission (CSC).
The CSC, in Resolution No. 960153, ruled in her favor by ordering her immediate reinstatement along with back wages starting from the date she sought resumption, a ruling later upheld by the Court of Appeals.

The case centers on whether Galzote’s prolonged absence—due to incarceration and the suspension order communicated by her employer—merited an automatic leave of absence, or whether she should have been required to file a formal application for leave.
It also raises the issue of whether due process was observed when the City Government unilaterally dropped her from the rolls without proper notice.

Whether the suspension order, which expressly provided that Galzote’s absence was excused until the final disposition of her criminal case, served as an implicit or automatic sanction equivalent to an approved leave of absence.
Whether the failure to file a formal application for leave during her detention could be excused by the circumstances and the employer’s instructions.

Whether Galzote was deprived of due process when the City Government dropped her from the rolls without prior notification or an opportunity to regularize her absence.
Whether the communication methods used by the petitioner (i.e., serving the notice at her last known address when she was incarcerated) complied with due process requirements.

Whether the provisions (Secs. 20/52 and 35/63) of the Civil Service Rules mandating a formal application process for leave of absence should be strictly applied in cases of involuntary absence due to detention.
Whether the CSC’s interpretation allowing an “automatic leave” in cases of force majeure (such as detention) is legally sustainable and consistent with statutory mandates.