Title
Garcia vs. Commission on Audit
Case
G.R. No. 75025
Decision Date
Sep 14, 1993
Employee dismissed for dishonesty, later acquitted in criminal case, granted executive clemency. Supreme Court ruled he is entitled to full back wages due to proven innocence and wrongful dismissal.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 75025)

Petitioner

Vicente Garcia, summary-dismissed on April 1, 1975 for alleged dishonesty in connection with missing telegraph poles.

Respondents

  1. Commission on Audit (COA) Chairman
  2. Minister of Land Transportation and Communications
  3. Regional Director, Telecom Regional Office No. IV

Key Dates

• April 1, 1975 – Administrative dismissal of petitioner
• January 23, 1980 – Acquittal for qualified theft by the Court of First Instance of Quezon
• August 26, 1981 – Grant of executive clemency (Resolution No. O.P. 1800)
• October 12, 1982 & July 23, 1985 – COA’s denials of back-wages claims
• April 21, 1986 – Presidential denial of appeal
• March 12, 1984 – Actual reinstatement to service
• September 14, 1993 – Supreme Court decision

Applicable Law

1987 Philippine Constitution, Article VII, Section 19 (pardon power); related jurisprudence on executive clemency and back wages recovery.

Administrative and Criminal Proceedings

An administrative case (Adm. Case No. 975) found petitioner guilty of dishonesty and dismissed him in 1975. He did not appeal administratively. A criminal case for qualified theft, based on identical facts, resulted in his acquittal in 1980 on grounds of innocence.

Executive Clemency and Reinstatement

After the Bureau of Telecommunications denied reinstatement, petitioner sought presidential clemency. Acting by the President’s authority, Deputy Executive Assistant Venus granted executive clemency on August 26, 1981, citing the trial court’s finding of innocence and favorable recommendations from the Ministry and the Civil Service Commission. Clemency implicitly directed reinstatement, effected on March 12, 1984.

COA’s Denial of Back Wages

COA denied petitioner’s claim for back wages (April 1, 1975–March 12, 1984) in its 5th Indorsement (Oct. 12, 1982) and Decision No. 362 (July 23, 1985), reasoning that:
a) Clemency was silent on back wages;
b) No service rendered during dismissal (“no work, no pay”);
c) Acquittal did not automatically expunge administrative liability;
d) Failure to appeal administrative decision waived rights.

Presidential Appeal Denial

On April 21, 1986, the Deputy Executive Secretary denied petitioner’s appeal “due to legal and constitutional constraint,” directing that certiorari before the Supreme Court was the proper remedy under Article IX-A, Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution.

Issue on Back Wages

Whether executive clemency based on innocence, coupled with automatic reinstatement, entitles petitioner to full back wages for the entire period of dismissal.

Presidential Clemency Power under 1987 Constitution

Article VII, Section 19 empowers the President to grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons after final conviction, and to remit fines and forfeitures. Such clemency acts as an exercise of executive control to temper justice with mercy.

Effect of a Pardon Based on Innocence

Jurisprudence holds that a pardon grounded on innocence “blots out” guilt and restores the recipient’s status “as if he never committed the offense.” It obliterates both legal penalties and administrative consequences, rendering reinstatement automatic and entitling the individual to all associated rights, including back wages.

Application to the Instant Case

Petitioner’s acquittal on grounds of innocence was the substantive basis for executive clemency. The pardon nullified his administrative dismissal for dishonesty,

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.