Professor AWOL

The question in this case is whether a professor of a State University who is absent without official leave (AWOL) is automatically separated from civil service. This issue was addressed in the case of Dr. Deguzman, an Associate Professor at the University of the Philippines in Los Baños (UPLB).

Dr. Deguzman took an unpaid vacation leave for three years, from Sept. 1, 1986, to Aug. 30, 1989, to serve as the Philippine government’s representative to the Center on Integrated Rural Development for Asia and the Pacific (CIRDAP). During this period, his salary was increased three times (January and March 1988, and July 1989) and his position was promoted from Training Specialist II to Assistant Professor effective March 16, 1988.

When his leave was about to end, CIRDAP requested UPLB to extend it for another year. The extension was denied by the UPLB director of Agricultural Credit Corporation Inc. (ACCI), who instructed Dr. Deguzman to report back by Sept. 15, 1989. The UPLB Chancellor also reminded him of Civil Service Rules regarding leave and warned that failure to return could result in being considered AWOL.

Despite this, Dr. Deguzman explained that he had to continue his commitment with CIRDAP. The Chancellor responded that if he did not return within 30 days, UPLB would drop him from the staff roll. Even after this warning, Dr. Deguzman did not report, but he was not officially removed from the university’s academic roster.

Nearly five years later, Dr. Deguzman informed the Chancellor that he intended to return to UPLB ACCI. At first, he was told he could only return with approved leave; otherwise, he would still be considered AWOL and needed to re-apply. Later, the Chancellor allowed him to report since the records did not show that he had been removed.

However, the Civil Service Commission (CSC), following a complaint from two members of the UPLB ACCI Academic Personnel Committee, ruled that Dr. Deguzman had been dropped from service as of Sept. 1, 1989, when his official leave ended. According to the CSC, he had been AWOL from that date and needed a new appointment to return. The CSC stated that UPLB could not override this rule.

The question is whether the CSC was correct. NO. Dr. Deguzman was never officially dropped because he remained on the University’s personnel roll, received salary increases and was promoted with Board of Regents approval. These actions contradict the idea of automatic separation. The university consistently supported him, showing that it chose not to exercise the option to dismiss him.

UP’s actions demonstrate the exercise of academic freedom. Universities have the autonomy to decide who teaches and who remains on staff, free from outside interference. This institutional academic freedom, as protected by the Constitution, allows the University to retain Dr. Deguzman despite CSC rules.