Case Digest (G.R. No. 153188)
Facts:
The case involves Jerrybelle L. Bunsay and 16 other petitioners against the Civil Service Commission (CSC) and the City of Bacolod. The events leading to the case began when the CSC-Field Office in Bacolod City disapproved the promotional appointments of 59 employees, including the petitioners, to various positions in the local government. The CSC Regional Office in Iloilo City upheld this disapproval. However, upon appeal, the CSC issued Resolutions No. 01-0414, No. 01-0415, and No. 01-0416 on February 12, 2001, which validated the promotional appointments but did not provide for backwages. Consequently, 22 of the appointees, including the petitioners, filed a request for back pay, which was denied by the CSC in Resolution No. 01-0872 dated May 3, 2001. The petitioners then filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was partially granted in Resolution No. 02-0016 dated January 3, 2002, allowing some employees to receive backwages while denying others, including the petitioner...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 153188)
Facts:
Background of the Case:
Petitioners are among 59 employees whose promotional appointments to various positions in the local government of Bacolod City were initially disapproved by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) Field Office in Bacolod City and the CSC Regional Office in Iloilo City. On appeal, the CSC upheld the validity of their promotional appointments in Resolutions No. 01-0414, No. 01-0415, and No. 01-0416, all dated February 12, 2001. However, these resolutions did not provide for the payment of backwages.Request for Backwages:
Twenty-two (22) of the 59 appointees, including petitioners, filed a request for back pay with the CSC. The CSC denied their request in Resolution No. 01-0872 dated May 3, 2001, citing the "no work, no pay" principle.Partial Grant of Backwages:
The CSC partially granted the Motion for Reconsideration in Resolution No. 02-0016 dated January 3, 2002. Some employees were granted backwages based on evidence of actual service rendered, while others, including petitioners, were denied due to lack of evidence.Appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA):
Petitioners filed a Petition for Review with the CA, but the CA dismissed the petition on technical grounds, such as the failure to attach required documents and the absence of an explanation for not personally serving the respondents.Supreme Court Petition:
Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA gravely abused its discretion by dismissing their appeal on technical grounds and failing to address the merits of their case.
Issue:
- Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioners' appeal based on technical grounds, thereby denying them the opportunity to have their case decided on its merits.
- Whether petitioners are entitled to backwages despite the initial disapproval of their promotional appointments.
- Whether the CSC's application of the "no work, no pay" principle violated the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of laws.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of petitioners, holding that they are entitled to backwages based on actual services rendered. However, the exact amount must be determined by the CA after evaluating the evidence. The Court emphasized the importance of deciding cases on their merits and ensuring that procedural lapses do not deprive parties of justice.