Case Summary (G.R. No. 197634)
Facts
Julius B. Campol was appointed as Secretary to the SB in a permanent capacity since 1999 and held the position with a salary grade of 24. After the election of Balao-as and Sianen in 2004, a resolution was passed to terminate Campol's employment, citing absences without approved leave. However, requests for his dismissal were met with advisories from the Sangguniang Panlalawigan and the Department of Interior and Local Government warning that Campol could not be dismissed without a valid cause. Despite this, Sianen issued a memorandum dropping Campol from the rolls, sparking a series of appeals beginning with the Civil Service Commission (CSC), which initially ruled in Campol’s favor but later upheld his dismissal upon appeal from Sianen.
Issue
The central legal issue in this matter revolves around whether Campol was entitled to reinstatement and the payment of backwages from the time of his dismissal until reinstatement.
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Campol, granting his reinstatement and full backwages due to his illegal dismissal. It pointed out the constitutional provision regarding the security of tenure for civil service employees, stating that no employee shall be removed except for cause provided by law.
The Law on Reinstatement
The Court emphasized the rights afforded to employees in the civil service under Section 2, paragraph 3 of Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution, which mandates that no officer or employee shall be removed without just cause. The Court drew attention to the importance of reinstatement as the general rule for unlawfully dismissed employees. It disagreed with the Court of Appeals' reasoning that Campol should not be reinstated simply because he found employment elsewhere, asserting that obtaining another job does not equate to abandonment of the prior position. Citing previous jurisprudence, the Court underscored that an employee cannot be penalized for pursuing livelihood under dire circumstances and that their right to reinstatement remains intact.
Legal Precedents
The Court revisited various key cases, such as Tan v. Gimenez, Gonzales v. Hernandez, and Canonizado v. Aguirre, which reinforce the principle that an employee’s transition to another position during a pending dismissal case does not invalidate their right to reinstatement. The doctrine ultimately affirms that failure to offer reinstatement merely based on subsequent employment could unjustly penalize employees who are merely trying to provide for themselves and their families.
The Law on Backwages
The ruling also clarified the issue of backwages, asserting that Campol should receive full wages from the time of his illegal dismissal until his actual reinstatement. The Court criticized the limited backwages as set by the Court of Appeals, insisting that such a limitation lacked legal justification. Past decisions, inclu
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 197634)
Case Overview
- This case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, filed by Julius B. Campol (Petitioner) against Mayor Ronald S. Balao-as and Vice-Mayor Dominador I. Sianen (Respondents).
- The Petition seeks the partial reversal of the Court of Appeals (CA) ruling dated December 15, 2010, which found Campol's dismissal illegal but denied his reinstatement.
- Campol claims entitlement to reinstatement and backwages following his illegal dismissal from the Municipality of Boliney, Abra.
Factual Background
- Campol served as Secretary to the Sangguniang Bayan (SB) of Boliney, Abra since 1999 in a permanent position with a salary grade of 24.
- Following the 2004 elections, Respondents assumed office and the SB passed a resolution terminating Campol’s position, citing unauthorized absences from August 1 to September 30, 2004.
- The Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) and other agencies advised that Campol could not be removed due to protections under the Administrative Code.
- Despite this advice, Respondent Sianen issued a memorandum dropping Campol from the rolls, which he contested before the CSC-CAR, leading to a ruling in his favor.
- The CSC eventually reversed this ruling, which prompted Campol to appeal to the CA.
Judicial Proceedings
- The CA ruled that Campol was illegally dismissed but refused to reinstate him, stating that he was already employed at the Public Attorn