Case Summary (G.R. No. 131012)
Administrative Appeals and Reinstatement
Margallo appealed to the Merit Systems and Protection Board (MSPB), which reduced his penalty to six-month suspension. He then appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), which affirmed MSPB for Margallo but downgraded Abad, Bandigas, Somebang to mere violations of reasonable office rules and reprimands, ordering their reinstatement.
Petition for Certiorari and Court of Appeals Ruling
DECS filed a Rule 65 petition; the Supreme Court referred it to the Court of Appeals. On September 3, 1996, the CA:
- Affirmed that Abad, Bandigas, Somebang were guilty only of reasonable office rule violations and worthy of reprimand.
- Reduced Margallo’s offense to the same and imposed a reprimand.
Upon reconsideration, the CA (July 15, 1997 resolution) ordered DECS to pay back salaries, allowances and benefits for the period of suspension/dismissal beyond the 90-day preventive suspension. A subsequent DECS motion was denied (October 6, 1997).
Issue on Back Salaries during Preventive Suspension
Whether public school teachers who were:
(a) Preventively suspended pending investigation; and
(b) Subsequently exonerated or reduced to reprimand after appeal,
are entitled to payment of salaries and benefits for the entire period of suspension, including beyond ninety days.
Legal Framework on Preventive Suspension
Under E.O. 292:
• Preventive suspension pending investigation (Sec. 51) is not a penalty but a measure to ensure unhampered inquiry; must end after 90 days or earlier if no decision.
• Preventive suspension pending appeal (Sec. 47(4)) applies when suspension/removal decisions are immediately executory; if respondent prevails on appeal, suspension is deemed preventive and salary must be restored.
Analysis – Compensation Pending Investigation
• Past provision (R.A. 2260) expressly granted full pay if exonerated; 1975 Decree and E.O. 292 deleted that grant.
• The Ombudsman Act (R.A. 6770) expressly limits preventive suspension to “without pay.”
• Legislative deletion indicates intent to deny pay during preventive suspension pending investigation.
• Preventive suspension authorized by law cannot be retroactively deemed unjustified; compensation is not recoverable for this period.
Analysis – Compensation Pending Appeal
• Preventive suspension pending appeal operates as an unconfirmed penalty; if conviction is reversed, execution was improper.
• Equity and justice require restitution for the period of actual suspension pending appeal.
• Comparable to Rule 39, A5 of the Rules of Court: reversed judgments executed pending appeal entitle parties to restitution.
• Jurisprudence limits recovery to five years’ pay at the last rate received.
Application
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 131012)
Facts
- In September–October 1990, public school teachers staged illegal strikes and walk-outs.
- Private respondents (Abad, Bandigas, Somebang, Margallo) did not report for work on various dates during those mass actions.
- DECS administratively charged them with:
• Grave misconduct
• Gross neglect of duty
• Gross violation of Civil Service Law, rules and regulations, and reasonable office regulations
• Refusal to perform official duty
• Gross insubordination
• Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service
• Absence without leave (AWOL) - They were placed under preventive suspension and investigated within a 90-day period.
- Upon conclusion, Margallo was dismissed (effective October 29, 1990); the other three were suspended for six months (effective December 4, 1990).
Administrative and Quasi-Judicial Proceedings
- Margallo appealed to the Merit Systems and Protection Board (MSPB):
• MSPB found him guilty only of conduct prejudicial to the service and imposed a six-month suspension. - Abad, Bandigas, Somebang appealed to MSPB but their appeals were dismissed for late submission of appeal memoranda.
- Civil Service Commission (CSC) review:
• Affirmed MSPB’s finding on Margallo.
• Reduced penalty for Abad, Bandigas, Somebang to reprimand for violation of reasonable office rules; ordered their reinstatement.
Court of Appeals Proceedings
- Petition for certiorari (Rule 65) filed with the Supreme Court; case referred to the CA.
- September 3, 1996 CA decision:
• Affirmed CSC’s reprimand and reinstatement of Abad, Bandigas, Somebang.
• Modified CSC’s penalty on Margallo to reprimand; reinstated him. - July 15, 1997 CA resolution on respondents’ motion for partial reconsideration:
• Maintained guilt (reasonable office rules violation; reprimand).
• Held respondents entitled to salaries, allowances and benefits during suspension/dismissal beyond the ninety-day preventive suspension. - October 6, 1997 CA resolution: denied DECS Secretary Gloria’s motion for reconsideration on the salary-award issue