This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2013-04-10 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Adalim dropped respondent employees from the rolls due to AWOL using CSC Memorandum Circular No. 14[20] as basis. This means that the employees left or abandoned their posts for a continuous period of thirty (30) calendar days or more without any justifiable reason and notice to their superiors.[21] | |||||
|
2008-11-28 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| We have repeatedly pronounced that perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is mandatory and jurisdictional.[21] The failure to perfect an appeal is not a mere technicality as it deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction over the appeal.[22] Hence, anyone seeking an exemption from the application of the reglementary period for filing an appeal has the burden of proving the existence of an exceptionally meritorious instance warranting such deviation.[23] But none obtains in this case. | |||||
|
2007-07-31 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Furthermore, we have already recognized that a government employee who is on AWOL may be dismissed without prior notice.[36] | |||||
|
2007-06-08 |
NACHURA, J |
||||
| Simply put, an AWOL means that the employee has left or abandoned his post for a continuous period of thirty (30) calendar days or more without any justifiable reason and notice to his employer.[28] In this case, petitioners failed to show that respondent had gone, or even had the intention to go, on AWOL. As found by the CSC and the CA, other than the assailed personal attendance sheet, respondent submitted in evidence copies of Index of Payments based on duly accomplished DTRs. These reflect the official attendance of the employee in the absence of proof that the employee concerned falsified the same.[29] Moreover, respondent's receipt of her salary for the contested period shows that there was nothing irregular in her office attendance.[30] Petitioners' claim that respondent incurred four hundred (400) absences for the contested period of November 1999 to May 2000 is indeed mathematically impossible as judiciously found by the CA. Lastly, petitioners' allegation that respondent's immediate supervisor did not know the respondent, despite the glaring fact that she verified the assailed personal attendance sheets, is contrary to logic and does not in any way prove petitioners' contention that respondent was continuously absent during the contested period. | |||||
|
2005-08-25 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| In Hon. Petilla v. Court of Appeals[7] this Court ordered the reinstatement of a government nurse on the ground, among others, that he could not have been considered on AWOL as he filed applications for sick and vacation leave[8] - | |||||