CSC POLICIES ON “DROPPING FROM THE ROLLS” DUE TO AWOL IN THE PHILIPPINES

(A comprehensive legal article for HR officers, lawyers, and government personnel managers)

1. Introduction

“Dropping from the rolls” (DFR) is an administrative mechanism by which a government employee may be separated from service without need of a formal administrative case, when the ground is non-disciplinary—most commonly Absence Without Official Leave (AWOL). While often confused with dismissal for cause, DFR is legally distinct: it is a managerial remedy designed to keep the civil service roster accurate and efficient, while still respecting due process through notice and an opportunity to be heard after separation.

2. Principal Legal Foundations

Instrument	Key Provisions on AWOL & DFR
1987 Constitution, Art. IX–B (Civil Service Commission)	Empowers the CSC to regulate entrance, terms, and conditions of government service.
Administrative Code of 1987 (E.O. 292), Book V	Authorizes the CSC to promulgate rules on personnel actions; Book V, Title I‑A lays the groundwork for separation procedures.
Revised Omnibus Rules on Appointments & Other Personnel Actions (ROR, CSC MC No. 40‑s. 1998, as amended)	Rule XIII outlines DFR for AWOL, unsatisfactory performance, and physical/mental unfitness; defines “AWOL” and the 30‑day trigger.
CSC MC No. 15‑s. 1999	Clarified that DFR is non‑disciplinary; service record shall state “Dropped from the Rolls” not “Dismissed”.
CSC MC No. 02‑s. 2004	Required “Return‑to‑Work Order” for those with < 30 days AWOL before DFR.
Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS, CSC Res. 1101502, 2011; now RACCS 2017 & 2021 revisions)	Categorizes DFR distinctly from formal administrative discipline; prescribes appeal route.
*CSC Res. No. 1302244 (2013, In re: Dropping from the Rolls of…)* and subsequent jurisprudence	Supreme Court and CSC decisions affirming mechanics and due‑process requirements.

3. Definitions

AWOL – Continuous absence without approved leave.
Continuous 30 work‑days AWOL – The quantitative threshold for automatic DFR. Non‑continuous (intermittent) absences are handled under separate “habitual absenteeism” rules and require a formal case.
Dropped from the rolls – A personnel action resulting in separation without prejudice to re‑employment (unless barred for other reasons) and without forfeiture of benefits already earned.

4. Grounds & Triggers for Dropping from the Rolls

Continuous AWOL of 30 working days.
Intermittent AWOL totaling ≤ 29 working days plus failure to report within the period set in a Return‑to‑Work Order.
Unsatisfactory or poor performance (two consecutive UNSAT ratings) – not our focus here but governed by the same rule.
Physical and mental unfitness – also under Rule XIII.

5. Procedural Requirements for AWOL‑Based DFR

Stage	Mandatory Steps	Reg ¶/Authority
A. Monitoring	HRMO tracks daily attendance and flags 30th continuous day.	ROR Rule XVIII
B. Preparation of Report & Notice	Immediate supervisor prepares a report; appointing authority issues a Notice of Dropping from the Rolls within 5 days of the 30th day.	CSC MC 02‑2004
C. Service of Notice	Serve personally; if impossible, send by registered mail to last known address or deliver via courier.	RRACCS §52
D. Effective Date	DFR is automatic on the 30th continuous day of AWOL; notice is for informative and remedial purposes, not a condition precedent.	CSC Res. 010306 (2001)
E. Post‑Separation Remedy	Employee may file a Motion for Reconsideration (MR) with the appointing authority within 15 days of receipt, or Appeal to the CSC Field/Regional Office within 15 days from denial/expiry of MR.	RRACCS, Rule 14
F. Updating Service Records	HRMO enters “Dropped from the Rolls due to AWOL effective ______”; no entry under administrative penalties; forfeiture only of future benefits (e.g., loyalty award requiring continuous service).	CSC MC 15‑1999

No Formal Investigation Required: Because DFR for AWOL is non‑disciplinary, there is no need for formal charge, hearing, or decision; the employee’s own failure to report justifies the action.

6. Effects of Dropping from the Rolls

Separation from Service – Immediately ends employer‑employee relationship.
Forfeiture of Future Benefits – Vacation/sick leave credits are paid out; GSIS benefits remain subject to existing eligibility rules.
Not a Bar to Re‑employment – The ex‑employee may re‑enter government if qualified; however, the DFR entry is visible to future HR for assessment of fitness.
Non‑imposition of Accessory Penalties – No perpetual disqualification, no forfeiture of retirement benefits, no perpetual disqualification from holding public office, unlike dismissal for cause.

7. Comparison: Dropping vs. Dismissal

Feature	Dropping from Rolls (AWOL)	Dismissal for Cause (Administrative Discipline)
Nature	Non‑disciplinary personnel action	Disciplinary penalty
Due Process	Simple notice after the fact; MR & appeal possible	Formal charge, answer, hearing, decision, MR, appeal
Accessory Penalties	None	Possible perpetual disqualification, forfeiture, etc.
Effect on Benefits	Earned benefits preserved	Often forfeited
HR Record Entry	“Dropped from the Rolls (AWOL)”	“Dismissed/Dropped as penalty”

8. Reinstatement or Reappointment

Reinstatement is not automatic but may be granted if:
1. The employee satisfactorily explains the absence (e.g., medical emergency with proof).
2. The appointing authority vacates the DFR through an approved MR.
Re‑appointment – Treated as a new appointment subject to qualifications, publication, and CSC approval.

9. Key Jurisprudence

Case	Gist / Doctrine
CSC v. Dado (G.R. 110025, Feb 24 1994)	Affirmed that AWOL for 30 days constitutes abandonment; no need for formal investigation.
CSC v. Belagan (G.R. 208912, Feb 2 2016)	Service of notice after 30 days satisfies due process; employee’s right is limited to seeking reconsideration/appeal.
Domingo v. CSC (G.R. 174978, Apr 22 2014)	Continuous vs. intermittent AWOL distinguished; DFR improper where total absence did not reach 30 consecutive days.
Estanislao v. CSC (G.R. 162391, Jan 19 2010)	DFR entry on service record valid; not a stigma amounting to dismissal.
People v. Gozo, Ombudsman Case	Clarified that criminal liability for payroll fraud may still attach despite DFR; administrative and criminal liabilities are distinct.

10. Role of the Human Resource Management Officer (HRMO)

Attendance Monitoring – Implement daily time records (DTR) & biometric systems.
Prompt Reporting – Notify supervisors once an employee hits 15 consecutive days of absence for preventive counseling.
Proper Documentation – Keep certified true copies of DTRs, leave cards, and notices.
Well‑timed Service of Notices – Delays expose the agency to appeals based on alleged violation of due process.
Orientation & Education – Regularly brief employees on leave rules and AWOL consequences.

11. Common Pitfalls & Compliance Tips

Pitfall	Avoidance Strategy
Failure to serve Notice, leading to reversal on appeal	Maintain logbook of service attempts; use registered mail/courier with 2℅ x 3-day rule for deemed receipt.
Treating intermittent AWOL as continuous	Compute absences accurately; issue Return‑to‑Work Order before DFR.
Using DFR to bypass due process for other offenses	File a formal administrative case if misconduct (e.g., falsification) is involved.
Not informing GSIS/DBM of separation	Transmit Notice of Personnel Action (NPA) and service record promptly.

12. Recent & Emerging Developments

Digitized Personnel Systems (2023‑2025) – CSC encourages e‑notices via official email; agencies must adopt Electronic Service Records (e‑SR) to expedite DFR processing.
Ease of Doing Business (RA 11032) synergy – Streamlining of HR actions, including DFR, tied to anti‑red‑tape metrics; prolonged failure to update rolls can count against agency ARTA compliance scores.
Proposed Amendments (pending 19th Congress bills as of July 2025) – Bills seek to extend the AWOL threshold to 45 days only for calamity‑declared areas; still under committee.

13. Conclusion

Dropping an employee from the rolls for AWOL is a swift yet lawful way to excise “ghost” positions, but agencies must scrupulously comply with CSC’s procedural blueprint—chiefly timely notice and proper record‑keeping. Done right, DFR protects the public interest in an efficient civil service without trampling constitutional due‑process guarantees. HR practitioners should integrate robust attendance tracking, regular policy orientation, and meticulous documentation to ensure every DFR action withstands CSC or judicial scrutiny.