G.R. No. 112513 - Del Castillo vs. Civil Service Commission

Edgar R. Del Castillo, the petitioner, was an employee of the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC).
On August 1, 1990, he was placed under preventive suspension by the PRC on grounds of grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

After a due investigation, petitioner was found guilty of grave misconduct and dismissed from service with forfeiture of all benefits.
Petitioner appealed the PRC’s decision to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), which exonerated him of the charge.
On appeal by the PRC, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) subsequently found him guilty of grave misconduct and imposed the penalty of dismissal.
A motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner was denied.

Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court by filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the CSC among other grounds.
The Supreme Court granted the petition en banc on February 14, 1995, reversing the CSC resolutions (Resolution Nos. 92-1249 and 93-4502) and reinstating the decision of the MSPB.
The MSPB order restored petitioner to his former position; however, it was silent on the issue of backwages.

Despite the reinstatement, petitioner sought additional relief by requesting payment of back salaries from PRC Chairman Hermogenes Pobre.
Although petitioner was reinstated on July 17, 1995, his claim for backwages was denied in a letter dated November 28, 1995.
A correspondence attached to the PRC’s letter stated that no valid legal basis existed for the award of back wages and other benefits, citing the silence of the Supreme Court decision on the matter.

Petitioner filed a Motion for Clarificatory Relief to clarify whether he was entitled to backwages and other monetary benefits for the period from his preventive suspension (August 1, 1990) until his reinstatement (July 17, 1995).
The CSC, in its comment dated October 29, 1996, referenced several cases (e.g., Miranda vs. COA, Abellana vs. City of Baguio, Reyes vs. Hernandez, Villamor vs. Lacson) to assert that government employees unlawfully dismissed or unjustly suspended are entitled to backwages.
The Solicitor General recommended granting the petitioner's prayer for backwages, citing relevant jurisprudence (e.g., Tan, Jr. vs. Office of the President, Cristobal vs. Melchor, Gabriel vs. Domingo, City Mayor of Zamboanga vs. Court of Appeals) to support the claim that an illegally dismissed employee, once ordered reinstated, is entitled to all rights and privileges of the office.

After reviewing the motion and the extensive legal precedents, the Court held that an employee who is illegally dismissed and later reinstated is, for all legal purposes, considered never to have left his office.
The Court concluded that petitioner's entitlement to backwages and other benefits accrues from the time of his preventive suspension up to the time of actual reinstatement.
The motion for clarificatory relief was consequently granted, with instructions for payment of back salaries at the prescribed rate with no deductions.

Whether Edgar R. Del Castillo, having been found exonerated and subsequently reinstated, is entitled to backwages and other monetary benefits for the period spanning from his preventive suspension on August 1, 1990, till his reinstatement on July 17, 1995.
Whether the silence of the MSPB order regarding backwages can be construed as a denial of such benefits, in light of established judicial precedents concerning unlawfully dismissed government employees.