UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES v CSC

FACTS

Dr. De Torres is an Associate Professor of the University of the Philippines, Los Banos (UPLB). He
served as the Philippines Government’s official representative to the Centre
on Integrated Rural Development for Asia and the Pacific (CIRDAP). CIRDAP requested UPLB for
a 1 year extension of said leave of absence, but it was denied. Petitioner was advised to report for
duty at UPLB but petitioner said that he had no choice but to continue working in CIRDAP. UPLB
warned the petitioner that failure to report within 30 days would result to the latter’s being dropped
from the rolls of the personnel. After 5 years, petitioner wrote that he was reporting back for duty;
however, he was informed that since his leave of absence was unapproved, he
was considered AWOL and thus had to re-apply.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner’s automatic separation from the civil service due to prolonged absence
without leave was valid.

RULING

YES. Petitioner was never actually dropped from the service of UPLB. He remained in the roll of
academic personnel even after being warned of the possibility of being dropped from service: no
notice of dropping from the rolls was issued by UPLB; petitioner’s salary was increase several
times during his absence; his appointment was reclassified with promotion in rank. These acts are
clearly inconsistent with serparation or dropping from service. Despite Section 33, Rule XVI or the
Revised Civil Service Rules which authorizes automatic separation, such is not applicable to UP
because of its academic freedom. This freedom encompasses autonomy to choose who should
teach and who should be retained in its rolls of professors and other academic personnel.
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES v CSC

FACTS

Dr. De Torres is an Associate Professor of the University of the Philippines, Los Banos (UPLB). He
served as the Philippines Government’s official representative to the Centre
on Integrated Rural Development for Asia and the Pacific (CIRDAP). CIRDAP requested UPLB for
a 1 year extension of said leave of absence, but it was denied. Petitioner was advised to report for
duty at UPLB but petitioner said that he had no choice but to continue working in CIRDAP. UPLB
warned the petitioner that failure to report within 30 days would result to the latter’s being dropped
from the rolls of the personnel. After 5 years, petitioner wrote that he was reporting back for duty;
however, he was informed that since his leave of absence was unapproved, he
was considered AWOL and thus had to re-apply.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner’s automatic separation from the civil service due to prolonged absence
without leave was valid.

RULING

YES. Petitioner was never actually dropped from the service of UPLB. He remained in the roll of
academic personnel even after being warned of the possibility of being dropped from service: no
notice of dropping from the rolls was issued by UPLB; petitioner’s salary was increase several
times during his absence; his appointment was reclassified with promotion in rank. These acts are
clearly inconsistent with serparation or dropping from service. Despite Section 33, Rule XVI or the
Revised Civil Service Rules which authorizes automatic separation, such is not applicable to UP
because of its academic freedom. This freedom encompasses autonomy to choose who should
teach and who should be retained in its rolls of professors and other academic personnel.