G.R. No. 228236 - House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal vs. Panga-Vega

February 2, 2011: Request for 15 days of special leave under RA 9710 (not exceeding two months) for hysterectomy
February 3, 2011: HRET approval of leave request beginning February 7, 2011
February 7, 2011: Total hysterectomy performed
March 7–9, 2011: Respondent submits medical certificates and reports for work
March 10 & 24, 2011: HRET resolutions directing complete consumption of leave and denying reconsideration
April 13, 2011: Appeal filed with Civil Service Commission (CSC)
October 9, 2012: CSC Decision granting appeal; respondent entitled to back salaries and unconsumed leave benefits
February 12, 2013: CSC denies HRET’s motion for reconsideration
March 19, 2013: HRET petition for review with Court of Appeals (CA)
April 29 & November 8, 2016: CA Decision and Resolution dismissing HRET’s petition
July 3, 2023: Supreme Court Resolution denying petition for review on certiorari

1987 Philippine Constitution, Article VI, Section 17 (creation of HRET)
1987 Philippine Constitution, Article XIII, Section 14 (State duty to protect working women)
Republic Act No. 9710, Section 18 (special leave benefit for women undergoing surgery for gynecological disorders)
Omnibus Rules Implementing Executive Order No. 292, Rule XVI, Section 14 (maternity-leave benefits)
CSC Memorandum Circular No. 25 (2010) (guidelines on special leave under RA 9710)
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), Article 3

Respondent was directed by HRET to consume full two-month special leave despite submitting medical certificates attesting fitness to resume work.
CSC ruled that upon presentation of a valid medical certificate, respondent need not exhaust the entire leave and was entitled to salary and commuted value of unexpired leave.
HRET’s motion for reconsideration before CSC was denied.
CA dismissed HRET’s petition for review, affirming CSC’s application of maternity-leave rules as suppletory.
HRET elevated the case to the Supreme Court via Rule 45 petition for certiorari.

HRET is a constitutional tribunal under Article VI, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) is the government’s statutory counsel; absent express deputation or a conflicting position, agencies lack capacity to file petitions without OSG representation.
No evidence of OSG deputation or divergence; HRET’s unauthorized filing deprived it of legal capacity.

RA 9710’s special leave and maternity leave share the same protective purpose: safeguard health and welfare of women employees.
As social legislation favoring women’s empowerment, RA 9710 must be liberally construed in beneficiaries’ favor.
Nothing in RA 9710 or CSC Guidelines forbids the liberal, humane application of maternity-leave provisions to special leave under RA 9710.

Major surgical procedures (including total hysterectomy) require a recuperation period of three weeks to two months per CSC Memorandum Circular No. 25 (2010).
Respondent observed four weeks of rest (February 7–March 7, 2011).
A medical certificate dated March 9, 2011, by her attending obstetrician-gynecologist expressly attested to her fitness for work

...

On February 2, 2011, Atty. Daisy B. Panga-Vega, then Secretary of the HRET, requested to avail of the two-month special leave benefit under RA No. 9710 for total hysterectomy scheduled February 7–11, 14–18, and 21–25, 2011.
The HRET granted the special leave request on February 3, 2011, effective February 7, 2011, not exceeding two months.
Panga-Vega underwent total hysterectomy on February 7, 2011, and in early March 2011 signified her intention to resume duties after one month of rest.
She first presented a medical certificate dated March 5, 2011, indicating “no contraindication to resume light to moderate activities,” then on March 9, 2011, a second certificate declaring her “fit to work” after physical examination.
On March 10, 2011, HRET directed her to consume the remaining balance of her two-month special leave, citing her need for prolonged recuperation and a pending investigation that could cause additional stress.
Panga-Vega sought reconsideration on March 14, 2011; HRET denied it on March 24, 2011, citing conflicting medical certificates and continuing health concerns.

April 13, 2011: Panga-Vega appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) against HRET’s two March 2011 resolutions.
October 9, 2012: CSC Decision granted Panga-Vega’s appeal, set aside the March 10, 2011 HRET resolution, and ordered payment of back salaries and benefits from March 7 to April 7, 2011.
February 12, 2013: CSC denied HRET’s motion for reconsideration, affirming its October 2012 Decision.
March 19, 2013: HRET filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals (CA).
April 29, 2016: CA dismissed HRET’s petition, adopted the CSC’s findings on the sufficiency of medical certification and permissibility of early return to work under RA No. 9710.
November 8, 2016: CA denied HRET’s motion for reconsideration.
January 27, 2021: HRET elevated the case via Petition f