G.R. No. 197571 - Civil Service Commission vs. Plopinio

The petitioner is the Civil Service Commission (CSC) while the respondent is Crisostomo M. Plopinio, a former COMELEC employee.
The respondent served as Election Officer III in Sipocot, Camarines Sur prior to his separation from service.
Allegations arose from a complaint by Alberto G. Adan accusing respondent of failing to act on a petition for the disqualification of a barangay candidate due to frequent absences.

The COMELEC, based on reports from its Personnel Department and memoranda by officials (notably Director Adolfo A. IbaAez), initiated a series of actions against the respondent for alleged unauthorized absences (AWOL).
Initial findings were based on the non-submission of Daily Time Records (DTRs) for specific periods (January–April 2002 and January–July 2003), which were interpreted as evidencing continuous absence without approved leave.
A memorandum by Atty. IbaAez recommended dropping the respondent from the rolls effective January 1, 2003 and withholding salaries, subject to further charges for violation of office rules.

On October 7, 2003, conflicting memoranda emerged when Director IbaAez withdrew his earlier recommendation based on further verification that the respondent had, in fact, submitted his DTRs to his immediate supervisor, Atty. Liza D. Zabala-CariAo—albeit without her signature due to “questionable entries.”
Respondent contested the basis for his dismissal, asserting that he had complied through proper channels by transmitting his DTRs and that his failure to have them signed was not his fault but a result of the supervisor’s act or omission.
A series of memoranda and communications were exchanged within COMELEC, including supplementary motions by the respondent alleging denial of due process and an improvident use of the AWOL presumption as the ground for his removal.

The respondent appealed the COMELEC resolutions (Resolution Nos. 03-0278 and 04-0019) before the Civil Service Commission (CSC), which affirmed the COMELEC action on the ground that mere allegations without documentary proof could not overcome the presumed absence.
In his subsequent submissions, the respondent presented extensive documentary evidence—transmittal letters, certified copies of DTRs, and memoranda—to show that he had indeed submitted his records, although not signed by his immediate supervisor.
The Court of Appeals, in its decision dated July 12, 2011, held that since the respondent had in fact submitted his DTRs, the basis for deeming him AWOL was unfounded. Consequently, the decision dropping him from the rolls was reversed and set aside, with an order for his reinstatement and payment of back salaries (limited to a maximum of five years).

Whether the respondent’s due process rights were violated in his removal from the rolls without a proper administrative investigation into the actual submission of his DTRs.
Whether the evidence, relying solely on non-signature by the supervisor, was sufficient to conclude that the respondent was AWOL.

Whether the allegations of continuous absence (30 working days or more) or a pattern of “questionable” entries in the DTRs warranted the dropping of an employee from the rolls.
Whether the withdrawal of the recommendation by Director IbaAez, based on the submission of DTRs, should have led to a reconsideration of the prior resolution.

Whether the lack of signed DTRs, despite the submission of the records to the immediate supervisor, provides a sound basis for assuming absenteeism.
Whether proper documentary evidence was provided by the respondent to prove regular attendance, thus negating the presumption of AWOL.