Today is Sunday, November 04, 2018

EN BANC

G.R. No. 132860 April 3, 2001

UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES and ALFREDO DE TORRES, petitioners,

PANGANIBAN, J.:

As part of its academic freedom, the University of the Philippines has the prerogative to determine who may teach its students.
The Civil Service Commission has no authority to force it to dismiss a member of its faculty even in the guise of enforcing Civil
Service Rules.

The Case

Before us is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to set aside the October 31, 1997 Decision 1 of the
Court of Appeals (CA)2 in CA-GR SP No. 40128. The CA upheld Resolution Nos. 95-30453 and 96-10414 issued by the Civil
Service Commission (CSC) on May 5, 1995 and February 15, 1996, respectively. In these Resolutions, the CSC held that
Petitioner "Alfredo De Torres is considered to have been dropped from the service as of September 1, 1989. Hence, his re-
employment requires the issuance of an appointment subject to the requirements of the Civil Service Law and Rules."

De Torres' Motion for Reconsideration of the CA Decision was denied in the February 25, 1998 Resolution of the Court of
Appeals.5

The Facts

The undisputed factual antecedents are summarized by the Court of Appeals thus:

"Dr. Alfredo B. De Torres is an Associate Professor of the University of the Philippines in Los Baños (UPLB) who
went on a vacation leave of absence without pay from September 1, 1986 to August 30, 1989. During this period,
 he served as the Philippine Government'' official representative to the Centre on Integrated Rural Development
for Asia and [the] Pacific (CIRDAP).

"When the term of his leave of absence was about to expire, CIRDAP requested the UPLB for an extension of
said leave of absence for another year, but was denied by Dr. Eulogio Castillo, the then Director of the
Agricultural Credit Corporation, Inc. (ACCI) of UPLB. In the same letter, Dr. Castillo advised Dr. De Torres to
report for duty at UPLB not later than September 15, 1989; while the then UPLB Chancellor Raul P. de Guzman
apprised him on the rules of the Civil Service on leaves and warned of the possibility of being considered on
Absence Without Official Leave (AWOL) if he failed to return and report for duty as directed.

"On August 27, 198[9], Dr. De Torres wrote UPLB that he had 'no alternative but x x x to pursue the matter in
continuing his commitment to CIRDAP.' In response thereto, Chancellor de Guzman warned De Torres, in a
Letter dated November 20, 1989, that in case of the latter's failure to report 'within 30 days from today,' UPLB
would be forced to drop him from the rolls of personnel. Despite the warning, Dr. De Torres did not report to work.

"On January 3, 1994 or after almost five years of absence without leave, Dr. De Torres wrote the incumbent
Chancellor Ruben L. Villareal that he was reporting back to duty at ACCI-UPLB effective January 3, 1994 x x x.
However, Chancellor Villareal notified Dr. De Torres that 'when an employee reports back for duty, he should
have been from an approved leave …' Likewise, Director Leodegacio M. Ilag, of ACCI-UPLB, in a Letter dated
February 10, 1994, informed De Torres that in the absence of any approved application for leave of absence, he
[was] considered to be on AWOL. Thus, he was advised to re-apply with UPLB.

"On June 30, 1994, Dr. De Torres wrote Chancellor Villareal seeking reconsideration [of] the two aforementioned
decisions x x x. On July 4, 1994, Chancellor Villareal reversed his earlier stand and notified De Torres that since
records at UPLB [did] not show that he ha[d] been officially dropped from the rolls he may report for duty effective
January 3, 1994 x x x.

"Mesdames Juanita Baskinas and Winifreda Medina, members of Academic Personnel Committee, ACCI-UPLB,
requested the Civil Service Commission regarding the employment status of Dr. De Torres x x x.

"On May 5, 1995, the Commission issued CSC Resolution No. 95-3045 x x x, the dispositive portion of which
reads:

'WHEREFORE, the Commission hereby rules that Dr. De Torres is considered to have been dropped
from the service as of September 1, 1989. Hence, his re-employment requires the issuance of
appointment subject to the requirements of Civil Service Law and Rules.'

"On June 9, 1995, Dr. De Torres and the University of the Philippines at Los Baños (UPLB) filed separate
requests for reconsideration of aforesaid CSC Resolution No. 95-3045 dated May 5, 1995. In its CSC Resolution
No. 96-1041 x x x, the commission denied the motion for reconsideration, further stating that CSC Resolution No.
95-3045 [stood] and that since separation from the service [was] non-disciplinary in nature, the appointing
authority may appoint Dr. De Torres to any vacant position pursuant to existing civil service law and rules."6

The CSC rationalized its ruling in this manner:

"It could be gleaned from the foregoing circumstances that De Torres was already on AWOL beginning
September 1, 1989 since his request for extension of leave of absence for one year was denied by then
Chancellor De Guzman. It is a fact that De Torres' absence from work was not duly authorized by UPLB. Despite
the advice of Chancellor De Guzman to him that he should report for duty on or before September 5, 1989, De
 Torres failed to do so. Thus, his failure to assume duty as ordered caused his automatic separation from the
service."

The Ruling of the CA

From the unfavorable Resolutions of the CSC, petitioners sought recourse before the Court of Appeals. But, finding "no grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or x x x excess of jurisdiction on the part of the respondent commission in the issuance of
the questioned Resolution," the appellate court dismissed the Petition for lack of merit. Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration
was denied in the CA Resolution dated February 25, 1998. Thus, this Petition for Review.7

Issues

Petitioners submit the following questions of law for the Court's consideration:8

"I

Whether or not a new appointment is still necessary for Dr. de Torres to resume his post at the UNIVERSITY
despite having remained continuously with the Civil Service, not having been dropped from the rolls of the
University, and after returning to fulfill his service contract as a government scholar.

"II

Whether or not the issuance by the COMMISSION of Resolution Nos. 95-3045 and 961041, was in excess of its
authority.

"III

Whether or not the COMMISSION violated the Subido-Romulo Agreement which is still in force and effect.

"IV

Whether or not the express repeal of the old law had the effect of doing away with the policy of automatic
dropping from the government service in favor of notice before dropping.

"V

Whether or not Section 33 of Rule XVI is ultra vires as it does not relate or is not in any way connected with any
specific provision of R.A. No. 2260.

"VI

Whether or not Resolution No. 95-3045 violated Dr. de Torres' constitutional right to due process."

In the main, the issue is the validity of Dr. Alfredo de Torres automatic separation from the civil service due to his prolonged
absence without official leave.

The Court's Ruling

The Petition is meritorious.

Validity of Automatic Separation from the Civil Service

In brief, petitioners argue that (1) the issuance of a new appointment in favor of Petitioner De Torres is not needed, because he
was not formally dropped from the rolls of the University of the Philippines; (2) the assailed CSC Resolutions were issued in
excess of authority, because the CSC had violated the Subido-Romulo Agreement and disregarded the University's academic
freedom, which includes the right to determine who may teach and who may be dropped dropped from the service; (3) Section
33, Rule XVI of the Revised Civil Service Rules – based on which respondent justified Petitioner De Torres' automatic separation
from the service – has been repealed and superseded by PD 807, as well as by EO 292 (Administrative Code of 1987) which
decrees prior notice before actual dropping; (4) even assuming that the said provision was not repealed, the issuance of the Ruel
was ultra vires because it was not related or connected to any specific provision of the mother law, RA 2260; and (5) the assailed
CSC Resolutions violated petitioner's right to due process, because he had not been given prior notice of his actual separation.

On the other hand, respondent, through the solicitor general, contends that (1) "[I]t is of no legal moment that petitioner De
Torres' name is still listed in the rolls of UPLB faculty members since his mandatory separation from the government service was
ipso jure upon his failure to report for duty within the period prescribed by his superior"; (2) the new Civil Service Rules did not
repeal but complement Section 33, Rule XVI of the Revised Civil Service Rules, with the additional provision on notice of actual
dropping; (3) Section 33 was a valid exercise by the CSC of its rule-making power to discipline erring employees of the civil
service; and (4) sufficiently constituting due notice of his separation from the service were the denial of Petitioner De Torres'
request for an extension of his leave of absence, coupled with the advice for him to report for work and the UPLB Chancellor's
subsequent letter informing him that in case he failed to report within thirty (30) days, he would be dropped from the rolls of its
personnel.

We now rule on these arguments. The Civil Service Commission predicated its ruling on Section 33, Rule XVI of the Revised
Civil Service Rules, which was in effect at the time. The provision states:

"Under no circumstances shall leave without pay be granted for more than one year. If an employee who is on
leave without pay for any reason fails to return to duty at the expiration of one year from the effective date of such
leave, he shall be considered automatically separated from the service; Provided, that he shall, within a
reasonable time before the expiration of his one year leave of absence without pay, be notified in writing of the
expiration thereof with a warning that if he fails to report for duty on said date, he will be dropped from the
service."

According to respondent, this provision speaks of automatic separation from the service, even without prior notice and hearing. It
extensively cites Quezon v. Borromeo,9 which supposedly held that the absence of notice to or investigation of the erring
employee "is not jurisdictional in cases involving Section 33, Rule XVI of the Revised Civil Service Rules."

The case cited involved the chief nurse of the Iligan City Hospital who had initially been authorized to go on special study detail
to take up or complete a degree in nursing for a period of not more than twelve (12) months. Afterwards, she requested two
extensions of her leave, which were both granted, albeit charged to her accumulated leave credits and, after exhaustion thereof,
without pay. Her extended leave totaled nineteen (19) months. Subsequently, she sought a third extension of leave, which was,
however, not acted upon by the authorities. Notwithstanding the lack of approval, she remained on leave and further requested a
fourth extension. By indorsement of the regional director, this fourth request was disapproved, with the statement that her
continuous leave of absence was in violation of Section 33, Rule XVI of the Civil Service Rules. Subsequently, an appointment
was issued to another person as chief nurse.

More than two years after the expiration of her last approved leave, the petitioner reported for duty, but she was informed that
she had been dropped from government service. The Court held that she had automatically been dropped from the service after
failing to return to work at the end of her approved leave. With respect to the lack of written notice of the impending expiration of
her leave, with a warning that she would be dropped from the service if she failed to report for duty upon such expiration, the
Court adverted to an earlier case, Isberto v. Raquiza.10 In that case, the Court held that the employee, who had been absent
without official leave, ought to have known that he was deemed automatically separated from the service from the time his
approved leave expired. The High Court pointed out that he was not excused by his ignorance of the rule providing for automatic
separation from the service upon failure to return to work after the lapse of the leave of absence without pay.

The Court also referred to Ramo v. Elefaño,11 which had sustained the dropp
Constitution
Statutes
Executive Issuances
Judicial Issuances
Other Issuances
Jurisprudence
International Legal Resources
AUSL Exclusive