Dear PAO,

My mom works in the government. Unfortunately, a few years back, she was subjected to unfounded charges of dishonesty. During the administrative case, she was initially found liable by the CSC Regional Office and was penalized with dismissal. During the pendency of her appeal, her office immediately removed her from her position, allegedly to implement the decision. My mom was eventually exonerated from the charges. In connection with this, can she claim backwages for the time when the earlier decision dismissing her was prematurely implemented?

Mila

Dear Mila,

Yes, your mother may be entitled to backwages. To elucidate this point, allow me to refer to the pertinent rules and jurisprudence. Please be advised that a decision of a Civil Service Commission Regional Office (CSC RO) imposing a penalty of dismissal, such as the one mentioned in your query, only becomes final and executory after the lapse of the reglementary period for filing a motion for reconsideration or an appeal and no such pleading has been filed. To be concise, Section 49, Rule 9 of the Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service dictates:

“Section 49. Finality of Decisions. – A decision rendered by the disciplining authority or by the CSC ROs whereby a penalty of reprimand, or suspension for not more than thirty (30) days or a fine in an amount not exceeding thirty (30) days’ salary is imposed, shall not be appealable. It shall be final and executory unless a motion for reconsideration is seasonably filed. However, the respondent may file an appeal or a petition for review when the issue raised is violation of due process.

“If the penalty imposed is suspension exceeding thirty (30) days, or a fine in an amount exceeding thirty (30) days’ salary, the decision shall be final and executory after the lapse of the reglementary period for filing a motion for reconsideration or an appeal and no such pleading has been filed.” (Emphasis and Underscoring Supplied)

In line with the foregoing, it would be an error for an office to immediately execute a decision of the CSC RO imposing a penalty of dismissal during the pendency of an appeal. Due to this, pertinent is the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Republic v. Maneja (GR 209052, June 23, 2021) penned by Associate Justice Mario Lopez, where the Supreme Court says:

“Clearly, effects of decisions of the CSCROs are different from those of the heads of offices. Specifically, decisions of Secretaries and heads of agencies imposing removal are executory upon confirmation of the Secretary concerned while decisions of the CSCROs imposing dismissal from the service are executory only when no motion for reconsideration or appeal is filed.

“Applying this rule here, Maneja timely filed a motion for reconsideration of the CSCRO No. X’s decision penalizing her with dismissal. When the motion was denied, she filed an appeal before the CSC within the reglementary period. Thus, CSCRO No. X’s decision never became executory. Consequently, its implementation of Maneja’s dismissal was illegal and has no basis in law.

“To reiterate, in Cruz, Bangalisan, Jacinto, and Dela Cruz, the decisions of the disciplining authority were properly immediately executed. In stark contrast, the decision of the CSCRO No. X here was prematurely executed pending Maneja’s appeal with the CSC. Ultimately, the conditions in Cruz do not apply here because the decision implemented was not executory.

“We find that the ruling in Abellera v. City of Baguio is applicable in this case. The CA correctly applied Abellera in affirming the grant of backwages to Maneja, viz.:

“On the legal issue of respondent’s entitlement to back salaries. petitioner, citing the case of Castro v. Honorable Secretary Gloria in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports, argues that respondent is not entitled to the payment of backwages considering that she was not completely exonerated.

“Petitioner’s argument would have been correct if the order of dismissal was not prematurely executed.

“The Supreme Court in Abellera v. City of Baguio, et al., had the occasion to declare that premature execution of a decision dismissing an employee from government service could serve as basis for an award of back salaries.”

Therefore, applying the cited rules and jurisprudence to your query — your mother, who was initially meted with a penalty of dismissal by the CSC RO but was subsequently exonerated, may claim for backwages premised upon the premature implementation of a decision which was completely reversed on appeal.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]