G.R. No. 80270 - City Mayor of Zamboanga vs. Court of Appeals

The case involves the Chief Veterinarian of Zamboanga City (private respondent), a public servant charged with several administrative offenses.
Three female employees of the Office of the City Veterinarian—Mrs. Pilar N. de los Santos, Mrs. Ma. Carmen G. Alpichi, and Mrs. Rosa Santa Guevarra—filed an administrative complaint against him.
The charges leveled against the respondent include allegations of Dishonesty, Oppression, and Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct.

The respondent repeatedly invited and insisted that she accompany him to the Zamboanga Plaza Hotel.
He suggested that her husband should remain unaware of their meetings and even advised her not to report to work, but rather to wait at a designated location so they could later proceed to the hotel.
He allegedly maneuvered to assign her husband to remote districts to facilitate his amorous advances without interference.

The respondent persistently invited her on several occasions to discreet eateries and restaurants during office hours, including a notable dinner and drinking session at the Happy Landing Restaurant.
During one encounter, he offered her money as capital for a sari-sari store, seemingly in exchange for accepting his advances.
He also subjected her to prolonged dining sessions during office hours, which was taken as an abuse of his superior position.

The respondent initially invited her for what was purportedly an official mission using his jeep, only to divert the outing to a canteen within an air base for a private encounter.
Subsequently, he invited her to go bowling and even scheduled a date at the Sultana Hotel, further offering her a token sum (P50.00) to secure her submission to his amorous advances.

On November 31, 1986, then Mayor of Zamboanga City, Hon. Cesar Climaco, rendered a decision finding the respondent guilty of Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct, imposing a penalty of forced resignation with prejudice to reinstatement.
The respondent appealed to the Civil Service Regional Director, and the case was referred to the Merit Systems Board of the Civil Service Commission, which found him guilty of Improper Conduct and penalized him with a reprimand and warning.
The decision of the Merit Systems Board was later set aside by the Civil Service Commission, which reinstated Mayor Climaco’s original ruling of Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct and reimposed the penalty of “considered resigned from service with prejudice to reinstatement.”
Subsequently, the respondent filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals. On August 10, 1987, the Court of Appeals:

Set aside the decision of the Civil Service Commission.
Modified the penalty to a six-month suspension without pay accompanied by a stern warning against repetition of the offense.
Ordered his reinstatement with full backwages after having served the penalty.

Dissatisfied with the Court of Appeals decision—particularly the order to pay full backwages—the City Mayor filed a petition for review seeking to reinstate the original penalty of forced resignation (later modified to dismissal).

The Solicitor General, along with the reviewing court, questioned the validity of ordering backwages to the respondent based on Section 78 of B.P. Blg. 337 of the Local Government Code.
This provision conditions the payment of back salaries on the exoneration of the public servant; since the respondent was not cleared but found guilty of misconduct, payment of backwages was deemed inappropriate.

The misconduct extended beyond isolated incidents; it illustrated a sustained pattern of abusing public trust by engaging in libidinous behavior and sexual harassment of subordinates.
The respondent misused his superior position to coerce and manipulate his female subordinates—actions that undermined the ethical standards and morale expected in public office.
The court emphasized that reinstating him with full backwages would not only reward such behavior but also erode public confidence in the civil service.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the payment of full backwages to a public servant who was found guilty of misconduct.
Whether the actions of the respondent, which constituted repeated misconduct including sexual harassment, warranted a lesser penalty (six-month suspension) or a harsher sanction such as dismissal.
Whether reinstating the respondent with full backwages would contradict the principle that public office is a public trust and undermine the integrity and moral standards required of government officials.