G.R. No. 82233 - Baritua vs. Court of Appeals

Dr. Alfredo B. De Torres, an Associate Professor at the University of the Philippines Los BaAos (UPLB), took a leave of absence without pay from September 1, 1986 to August 30, 1989.
During his leave, he concurrently served as the Philippine Government’s official representative to the Centre on Integrated Rural Development for Asia and the Pacific (CIRDAP).
A request was made by CIRDAP to extend his leave for an additional year, but the request was denied by Dr. Eulogio Castillo, then Director of the Agricultural Credit Corporation, Inc. (ACCI) of UPLB.

As his leave was about to expire, UPLB communicated the need for him to report back for duty:

Dr. Castillo’s letter advised him to report no later than September 15, 1989.
UPLB Chancellor Raul P. de Guzman reminded him of the Civil Service rules on leaves and alerted him of the risk of being deemed absent without official leave (AWOL) if he did not return.

On August 27, 1989, Dr. De Torres communicated his intention to continue his commitment with CIRDAP, while a subsequent letter from Chancellor de Guzman, dated November 20, 1989, warned him that failure to report within thirty days would result in his dropping from the personnel rolls.

Despite receiving warnings, Dr. De Torres did not report for duty, leading to an extended period of absence without approved leave.
On January 3, 1994—after almost five years of absence without official leave—he attempted to resume duty by reporting to Chancellor Ruben L. Villareal at ACCI-UPLB.
Upon his return, he was informed that, in the absence of any approved leave application, he was considered AWOL and was advised to re-apply with the University.
Dr. De Torres sought reconsideration of prior decisions regarding his employment status in subsequent communications, including a letter dated June 30, 1994, to Chancellor Villareal.
The Chancellor later reversed the earlier position, indicating that since he was not officially dropped from the rolls, he might report for duty effective January 3, 1994.

Inquiries by members of the Academic Personnel Committee (Juanita Baskinas and Winifreda Medina) led the Civil Service Commission to address Dr. De Torres’ employment status.
CSC Resolution No. 95-3045, issued on May 5, 1995, ruled that Dr. De Torres was considered dropped from the service as of September 1, 1989, and thus required a new appointment for re-employment in accordance with Civil Service Law and Rules.
A subsequent CSC Resolution No. 96-1041 (February 15, 1996) reaffirmed the ruling and dismissed the motion for reconsideration raised by both Dr. De Torres and UPLB.
Despite these resolutions, UPLB’s records and actions—such as several salary increases and a promotion (with the approval of the UP Board of Regents)—indicated that Dr. De Torres was never conclusively dropped from the rolls.

Following the unfavorable CSC resolutions, Dr. De Torres, together with the University, sought recourse before the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals, finding no grave abuse of discretion, dismissed DR. De Torres’ petition for lack of merit.
Dr. De Torres’ subsequent petition for review before the Supreme Court encapsulated these factual and procedural disputes.

Whether a new appointment is necessary for Dr. De Torres to resume his post at the University, given that he remained on the rolls and had continuously been associated with the Civil Service.
Whether the issuance of CSC Resolution Nos. 95-3045 and 96-1041 was in excess of the Commission’s authority.
Whether the CSC, in issuing the resolutions, violated the Subido-Romulo Agreement still in force.
Whether the express repeal of the old law effectively abolished the policy of automatic dropping without prior notice.
Whether Section 33 of Rule XVI is ultra vires for not relating or connecting to any specific provision of R.A. No. 2260.
Whether the CSC’s resolutions violated Dr. De Torres’ constitutional right to due process by failing to provide him prior notice of his separation.