A.M. No. 18-07-131-RTC - Re: People vs Noel C. Lindo

Case Summary (A.M. No. 18-07-131-RTC)

Factual Background

The Court relied on records from the Employees’ Leave Division (ELD), OAS, OCA showing that Lindo failed to submit his DTRs from November 2017 up to the time the matter was acted upon, and also failed to file applications for leave covering his absences. The Office concluded that he had been AWOL since November 2, 2017.

The administrative record further showed that on August 2, 2017, the OCA issued a memorandum ordering the withholding of Lindo’s salaries and benefits due to failure to submit his DTRs for the period May 2017 to June 2017. After this, in a Letter dated November 9, 2017, Atty. Pearl Angeli G. Formilleza-Ronquillo informed the OCA that Lindo had been remiss in submitting his DTRs and Applications for Leave for several months despite having been given several chances.

Additionally, transmittal letters dated December 13, 2017 and January 9, 2017, both signed by Atty. Formilleza-Ronquillo and subscribed and sworn to before Presiding Judge Ralph S. Lee (Judge Lee), indicated that Lindo did not submit his DTRs for the months of November 2017 and December 2017. In a Letter dated February 8, 2018, Judge Lee recommended that Lindo be declared AWOL and requested that the position of Deputy Sheriff in his branch be declared vacant.

The OCA also reported, based on the records of its different offices, that (a) Lindo had not filed any application for retirement; (b) he remained in the plantilla of personnel and was therefore considered in active service; and (c) he was not an accountable officer. The OCA noted that Lindo had a pending matter, docketed as OCA IPI No. 13-4112-P, as verified with the Docket and Clearance Division, Legal Office of the OCA.

OCA Recommendation

In its Report dated June 13, 2018, the OCA recommended that Lindo’s name be dropped from the rolls effective November 2, 2017 due to his AWOL. The OCA also recommended declaring his position vacant and informing him of his separation from service or dropping from the rolls at his last known address at 1617 O’este Street, Alvarez Extension, Sta. Cruz, Manila.

The OCA qualified its recommendation by stating that Lindo remained qualified to receive benefits he might be entitled to under existing laws and could still be reemployed in the government, while expressly without prejudice to the outcome of OCA IPI No. 13-4112-P.

Court’s Ruling and Disposition

The Court granted the OCA’s recommendation. It held that the basis for separation was Section 107(a-1), Rule 20 of the 2017 RACCS, which provides for dropping from the rolls where an officer or employee has been continuously absent without approved leave for at least thirty (30) working days.

The Court observed that Section 107(a-1) does not require prior notice for dropping from the rolls where the employee has been continuously AWOL for the required period. Applying the rule to Lindo, the Court ruled that he should be separated from the service or dropped from the rolls in view of his continued absence since November 2, 2017.

The Court emphasized the administrative and judicial implications of prolonged unauthorized absence. It noted that continued AWOL causes inefficiency in public service and disrupts the normal functions of the court. It further stressed that such conduct contravenes the public servant’s duties to serve with the utmost degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency. The Court characterized Lindo’s AWOL as a gross disregard of and neglect for the duties of his office and reiterated that court employees are burdened with a heavy responsibility because of their connection to the dispensation of justice and the need to preserve public faith in the Judiciary.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court anchored its authority on the 2017 RACCS and treated the act of separating a civil service employee for unauthorized absences as non-disciplinary. It cited Section 110, Rule 20 of the 2017 RACCS, which states that dropping from the rolls for unauthorized absences is non-disciplinary in nature and shall not result in forfeiture of benefits or disqualification from reemployment in the government.

Accordingly, the Court agreed with the OCA that Lindo was still qualified to receive benefits he might be entitled to under existing laws and could still be reemployed in the government. The Court limited the effect of the resolution by noting it was without prejudice to the outcome of the pending case against him under OCA IPI No. 13-4112-P.

Doctrinal Takeaway

The decision underscores that under Section 107(a-1), Rule 20 of the 2017 RACCS, an employee who is continuously AWOL for at least thirty (30) working days may be dropped from the rolls without prior notice, with the separation taking

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. 18-07-131-RTC)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Noel C. Lindo served as Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 83, and became the subject of an administrative matter.
The matter stemmed from records of the Employees’ Leave Division (ELD) of the Office of Administrative Services (OAS), Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
The OCA submitted a recommendation to drop Lindo from the rolls effective November 2, 2017 due to absence without approved leave (AWOL).
The Court adopted the OCA recommendation and resolved to drop Lindo from the rolls and declare his position vacant.

Key Factual Allegations

Lindo failed to submit his Daily Time Records (DTRs) from November 2017 up to the present as shown by the ELD records.
Lindo also failed to file any application for leave for his absences.
The Court concluded that Lindo was on absence without official leave (AWOL) since November 2, 2017.
Prior issuance of administrative action occurred when the OCA issued a Memorandum dated August 2, 2017 ordering the withholding of salaries and benefits for failure to submit DTRs for May 2017 to June 2017.
A letter dated November 9, 2017 reported Lindo’s repeated remissness in submitting DTRs and Applications for Leave despite several chances.
Transmittal letters dated December 13, 2017 and January 9, 2017 indicated that Lindo did not submit DTRs for November 2017 and December 2017.
The Presiding Judge Ralph S. Lee recommended in a letter dated February 8, 2018 that Lindo be declared AWOL and that the Deputy Sheriff position be declared vacant.
The OCA further verified that Lindo had no filed application for retirement, remained in the plantilla and thus was considered in active service, and was not an accountable officer.
The OCA noted a pending case against Lindo, docketed as OCA IPI No. 13-4112-P.
The Court emphasized that Lindo’s continued conduct and omission disrupted public service functions tied to the administration of justice.

Statutory and Rule-Based Framework

The Court applied Section 107(a-1), Rule 20 of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RACCS), which provides a ground and procedure for dropping from the rolls for absence without approved leave.
Under Section 107(a-1), Rule 20 of the 2017 RACCS, an employee who is continuously AWOL for at least thirty (30) working days may be dropped from the rolls without prior notice that shall take effect immediately, subject to a right to appeal separation within fifteen (15) days from receipt of notice sent to the employee’s last known address.
The Court construed Section 107(a-1), Rule 20 as not requiring prior notice when the employee has been continuously AWOL for at least thirty (30) days.
The Court relied on Section 110, Rule 20 of the 2017 RACCS, which characterizes separation under dropping-from-the-rolls for unauthorized absences as non-disciplinary in nature and provides that it shall not result in forfeiture of any benefit and shall not disqualify the employee from reemployment in the government.
The decision cited the Civil Service Commission-promulgated 2017 RACCS through Resolution No. 1701077 dated July 3, 2017.

Issues Presented

The Court determined whether Lindo’s continued AWOL warranted dropping from the rolls under Section 107(a-1), Rule 20 of the 2017 RACCS.
The Court addressed whether the separatio