This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2004-03-03 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| AWOL means that the employee is leaving or abandoning his post without justifiable reason and without notifying his employer.[30] In this case, petitioner gravely failed to show that respondent had the least intention to go on AWOL. Otherwise, respondent would not even have bothered to file his applications for sick and vacation leave. Moreover, had respondent intended to go on AWOL, respondent would not even have protested his reassignments in the first place, and seek his reinstatement to his former workstation. Respondent's protest of his reassignments clearly contradicts petitioner's claim that respondent was on AWOL. We apply by analogy the ruling in Cariño v. Daoas[31] where we held that petitioner is "justified in not heeding her reassignment order because her basis was xxx the legal opinion of a regional office of the Civil Service Commission" that the reassignment is illegal. In that case, we ordered the reinstatement of petitioner who was dropped from the rolls for her absence without leave for more than thirty days. In this case, respondent's absence was based on his leave applications, albeit denied, and not on his deliberate refusal to heed the reassignment orders. | |||||