Case Digest (G.R. No. 171048)
Facts:
Rudy A. Palecpec, Jr. v. Hon. Corazon C. Davis, G.R. No. 171048, July 31, 2007, Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam. Petitioner Rudy A. Palecpec, Jr. (petitioner) was an Administrative Officer III of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources — National Capital Region (DENR‑NCR); respondent Corazon C. Davis (respondent) was then the Regional Executive Director of DENR‑NCR.Petitioner was declared dropped from the DENR‑NCR plantilla effective August 1, 2000, by respondent’s Memorandum notifying him that, having been continuously absent without approved leave (AWOL) for at least 30 working days, he was separated pursuant to CSC rules. Petitioner claimed he had in fact reported for work on several dates in June and July 2000 and relied on entries in the security guard’s logbook (signed “Andy P.”) to prove attendance; respondent relied on petitioner’s DTRs, the affidavit of petitioner’s immediate supervisor, and registry receipts showing service of the memoranda.
Petitioner’s motions for reconsideration with respondent were denied. Petitioner filed an appeal with the Civil Service Commission — National Capital Region (CSC‑NCR), which after investigation granted his Petition for Relief (Order dated January 29, 2003) and the CSC‑NCR denied respondent’s motion for reconsideration (Decision dated September 15, 2003). The CSC En Banc affirmed the CSC‑NCR (Resolution No. 04‑0968 dated September 1, 2004), and denied respondent’s motion for reconsideration (Resolution No. 05‑0758 dated June 7, 2005), reinstating petitioner with back salaries.
Respondent sought relief from the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Review under Rule 43 with a prayer for TRO; the Court of Appeals issued a TRO and on September 29, 2005 reversed and set aside the CSC Resolutions, effectively upholding petitioner’s separation for AWOL. The Court of Appeals denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration (Resolution dated January 10, 2006). Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court seeking reversal of the Court of Appeals decision and reinsta...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May this Court review the Court of Appeals’ factual findings in a Rule 45 petition where those findings conflict with those of the Civil Service Commission?
- Was petitioner continuously AWOL for at least thirty (30) working days during the period alleged, such that his separation from service was valid?
- Was petitioner duly served with respondent’s memoranda (June 1 and August 1, 2000), and were his ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)