Case Digest (G.R. No. 131012)
Facts:
Hon. Ricardo T. Gloria, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Education, Culture, and Sports, G.R. No. 131012, April 21, 1999, Supreme Court En Banc, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court. The petition arose from administrative actions taken against several public school teachers who failed to report for work during the teachers’ strikes of September–October 1990.The private respondents — Amparo A. Abad, Virgilia M. Bandigas, Elizabeth A. Somebang, and Nicanor Margallo — were administratively charged for acts connected with their absences (including grave misconduct, neglect of duty, violation of Civil Service rules, refusal to perform duty, gross insubordination, conduct prejudicial to the service, and AWOL) and placed under preventive suspension. The DECS investigation concluded within the 90-day preventive suspension period and found them guilty; Margallo was ordered dismissed effective October 29, 1990, while Abad, Bandigas, and Somebang were ordered suspended for six months effective December 4, 1990.
Margallo appealed to the Merit Systems and Protection Board (MSPB), which reduced his penalty to six months’ suspension. The other three appealed but their appeals were dismissed for failure to file appeal memoranda on time. On further review, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) affirmed the MSPB as to Margallo but reduced the penalty of Abad, Bandigas and Somebang to reprimand for violating reasonable office rules and ordered their reinstatement.
Respondents filed a Rule 65 petition which, under the Court’s administrative procedures, was referred to the Court of Appeals. On September 3, 1996, the Court of Appeals affirmed the CSC as to Abad, Bandigas, and Somebang and reduced Margallo’s penalty to reprimand. After respondents moved for reconsideration seeking exoneration and back salaries, the Court of Appeals, in a July 15, 1997 resolution, while maintaining the reprimands, modified its disposition by ordering DECS to pay petitioners their salaries, allowances and other benefits for the period of their suspension/dismissal "beyond the ninety (90) day preventive suspension." Petitioner Gloria moved for reconsideration as to the grant of back pay; the Court of Appeals denied the motion (Oct. 6, 1997). Petitioner then filed this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
Petitioner argued that (a) the administrative investigation was concluded within the 90-day preventive suspension period so any further nonpayment of salaries was attributable to the employees’ appeals and, under Sec. 47(4) of the Civil Service Law, they were considered under preventive suspension during appeal and thus not entitled to pay; and (b) preventive suspension pending investigation is statut...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Are employees who are preventively suspended pending administrative investigation entitled to back salaries for that preventive suspension period upon subsequent exoneration?
- Are employees who are suspended or dismissed and whose penalty is executed but who are later exonerated on appeal entitled to back salaries for the period of suspension pending appeal (i.e., beyond the 90-day investigative suspension)?
- Do the private respondents — exonerated of strike participation but reprimanded for absence without leave — qualify for back salaries for the per...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)