|
EN BANC
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x R E S O L U T I O N
PER CURIAM:
Before the Court is petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration[1] dated 28 August 2007 seeking the reversal of its per curiam Decision[2] dated 31 July 2007, which denied petitioner’s appeal.
Petitioner was serving as Administrative Officer III of the Interim Internal Audit Division of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, National Capital Region (DENR-NCR) when he was dropped from the rolls by the respondent DENR-NCR Executive Regional Director for absences without official leave (AWOL). The Court affirmed the finding of the Court of Appeals that, except for the period 8-10 May 2000 for which petitioner was granted an approved leave of absence, petitioner had been absent without authorization beginning 2 May 2000, the entire months of June and July 2000, and up to 1 August 2000. Petitioner was AWOL for a continuous period of more than 30 days for which he was properly dropped by the respondent from the rolls. Thus, the dispositive portion of this Court’s Decision dated 31 July 2007 reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we DENY the present Petition for Review on Certiorari and AFFIRMORDER that petitioner Rudy A. Palecpec, Jr. be dropped from the rolls of the Plantilla of Personnel of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, National Capital Region effective 1 August 2000, with the cancellation of his civil service eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits; and with prejudice to his reemployment in any branch of the government or any of its agencies or instrumentalities, including government owned and controlled corporations. Costs against the petitioner.[3] the Decision dated 29 September 2005 and Resolution dated 10 January 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 90292. We hereby
This Court finds no cogent reason to reverse its earlier ruling that there is substantial evidence of petitioner’s AWOL for more than 30 days. However, considering that dropping from the rolls due to AWOL does not automatically amount to charges of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the public and frequent unauthorized absences, his being dropped from the rolls due to his AWOL should neither result in the forfeiture of his benefits[4] nor his disqualification from re-employment in the government.[5]
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner is hereby PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision, dated 31 July 2007 of this Court ordering that petitioner Rudy A. Palecpec, Jr. be dropped from the rolls of the Plantilla of Personnel of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, National Capital Region, effective 1 August 2000, for Absence Without Official Leave, is hereby AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. The provision in the dispositive portion thereof ordering the cancellation of petitioner’s civil service eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and prejudice to his reemployment in any branch of the government or any of its agencies or instrumentalities, including government owned and controlled corporations, is hereby DELETED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
REYNATO S. PUNOChief Justice
RUBEN T. REYES Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
* On official leave. [1] Rollo, pp. 278-291. [2] Id. at 253-277. [3] Id. at 276. [4] Id. [5] Municipality of Butig, Lanao del Sur v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 138348, 9 December 2005, 477 SCRA 115. |
