UDK-15143 - IN RE: Supreme Court Judicial Independence vs. Judiciary Development Fund

The petitioner is the Civil Service Commission (CSC).
The respondent is Richard G. Cruz, a Storekeeper A of the City of Malolos Water District (CMWD).
Cruz was charged with grave misconduct and dishonesty by CMWD General Manager Nicasio Reyes.
Cruz was preventively suspended for 15 days and subsequently dismissed from service by CMWD upon approval of the Board of Directors.
Cruz elevated the case to the CSC, which absolved him of grave misconduct and dishonesty, ordered his reinstatement but imposed reprimand for violation of reasonable office rules for failure to log in and out.
Both CMWD and Cruz filed motions for reconsideration which the CSC denied.
CMWD and Cruz separately filed petitions for review before the Court of Appeals (CA).
The CA dismissed CMWD’s petition; Cruz’s petition for payment of back salaries was granted.
CSC filed a petition before the Supreme Court assailing CA decision awarding back salaries.

Grave misconduct for allegedly uttering a false, malicious, and damaging statement against GM Reyes and the Board of Directors, witnessed by four subordinates.
Dishonesty for claiming overtime pay without logging in/out in the computerized daily time record for three working days.
Cruz denied charges, stating three witnesses retracted testimony and non-log was due to technical problems.
Cruz submitted evidence of actual overtime work on questioned days.

CSC found no factual basis for charges of grave misconduct and dishonesty.
Grave misconduct charge: utterance was expression of disgust, not malicious or corrupt; especially considering allegations against the GM and Board.
Dishonesty charge: evidences showed actual performance of overtime work; failure to log attendance does not amount to dishonesty.
CSC found Cruz liable only for violation of reasonable office rules due to failure to log in/out; imposed penalty of reprimand.
Denied payment of back salaries.

Applied *Bangalisan v. Court of Appeals* ruling to award Cruz back salaries from dismissal until reinstatement.
Found that Cruz was totally exonerated from charges of grave misconduct and dishonesty.
Held that the violation of reasonable office rules was distinct from charge of dishonesty, thus Cruz was fully exonerated from dishonest act.
Since CSC did not order back salaries, CA ruled that full rights as an exonerated employee were not restored.
Denied CSC’s motion for reconsideration.

CSC argues CA erred by applying *Bangalisan* and awarding back salaries without full exoneration.
CSC contends Cruz was only partially exonerated; dishonesty charge was downgraded to a lesser offense for failure to log.
Argues preventive suspension was justified; reference to *Jacinto* and *De la Cruz* where back salaries denied due to partial exoneration.
Cruz insists entitlement to reinstatement and back salaries based on complete exoneration from initial charges.

Whether respondent Richard G. Cruz is entitled to back salaries from time of dismissal until reinstatement after CSC ordered his reinstatement and found he was guilty only of violation of reasonable office rules and regulations.