FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-48643. January 18, 1982.]

OCTOT petitioner, vs. JOSE R. YBAEZ, in his capacity as

DIOSDADO OCTOT,
Regional Director of Regional Health Of ce No. VII, CLEMENTE S.
GATMAITAN, in his capacity as Secretary of Health, and
Presidential Executive Assistant JACOBO C. CLAVE , respondents.

Juanito M. Salvador for petitioner.

Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, Assistant Solicitor General Eulogio Raquel-
Santos and Solicitor Salvador C. Jacob for respondent.

SYNOPSIS

Petitioner, a security guard in the Regional Health Of ce of Cebu City, was summarily
dismissed from the service pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 6 and LOI Nos. 14 and 14-
a directing heads of departments of the government to weed out undesirable employees,
especially those who were facing charges and were notoriously undesirable. Petitioner, at
that time, had a judgment of conviction for libel pending appeal. when his acquittal was
obtained, he sought reinstatement. His request was given due course but despite notices
to him to ll up the necessary papers to support his new appointment, he failed to appear
but instead led the instant action for mandamus praying for reinstatement, payment of
back salaries, cost of living allowance, compensatory, exemplary and moral damages, and
to pay attorney's fees and the costs of the suit.
The Supreme Court, nding petitioner's reinstatement authorized by the Of ce of the
President, issued a resolution directing that he be reinstated but denied his claims for
backwages and damages in the absence of proof that respondents had acted in bad faith
and with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing him aside from the fact that the Of ce of
the President, in approving his reinstatement, did not authorize payment of backwages
pursuant to LOI 647. Petitioner's claim for moral and exemplary damages was likewise
denied as the delay in his reinstatement was attributable to his fault and as the conditions
required for the award of exemplary damages were not met.
Petition rendered moot in view of petitioner's reinstatement.

SYLLABUS

1. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES; DISMISSAL FROM THE

SERVICE; REINSTATEMENT; BACKWAGES NOT RECOVERABLE WHERE DISMISSAL WAS
NOT MOTIVATED BY BAD FAITH OR MALICE; CASE AT BAR. In the absence of proof that
respondent Regional Director acted in bad faith and with grave abuse of discretion,
petitioner is not entitled to backwages and consequently cannot claim for damages. In the
case at bar, the record manifests that respondent of cials were not motivated by ill will or
personal malice in dismissing petitioner but only by their desire to comply with the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 mandates of Presidential Decree No. 6. Accordingly, when petitioner was acquitted by the
Court of Appeals, and made a request for his reinstatement, respondents readily showed
their willingness to take him back and recommended to the authorities concerned his
reinstatement. However, the Of ce of the President, in approving the reinstatement of
petitioner, speci cally invited attention to the provisions of LOI No. 647 which does not
authorize payment of backwages of reinstated employees.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; MORAL DAMAGES NOT RECOVERABLE WHERE SEPARATION FROM THE
SERVICE NOT SHOWN TO BE IN BAD FAITH AND DELAY IN REINSTATEMENT IS
ATTRIBUTABLE TO PETITIONER'S OWN FAULT. Where petitioner's delay in his
reinstatement was attributed to his own fault and negligence for he failed to promptly
report to the Regional Of ce upon notice to accomplish the necessary papers for his
reinstatement and where it is clear that his separation from the government service had
not been shown to be in bad faith, an award for moral damage under the circumstance
would not be just and proper. Neither is it among the cases mentioned in Articles 2219
and 2220 of the Civil Code wherein moral damages may be recovered.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; EXEMPLARY DAMAGES NOT GENERALLY RECOVERABLE IN ACTIONS
FOR MANDAMUS. Exemplary damages are not generally recoverable in a special civil
action for mandamus unless the defendant patently acted with vindictiveness or
wantonness and not in the exercise of honest judgment. The claim for exemplary damages
must presuppose the existence of the circumstances enumerated in Articles 2231 and
2232 of the Civil Code.
4. CIVIL LAW; DAMAGES; EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, WHEN RECOVERABLE. Exemplary or
corrective damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good, in
addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages. Such damages are
required by public policy, for wanton acts must be suppressed. They are an antidote so
that the poison of wickedness may not run through the body politic. Our jurisprudence sets
certain conditions when the same may be awarded, as follows: (1) they may be imposed
by way of example or corrected only in addition, among others, to compensatory damages,
and cannot he recovered as a matter of right, their determination depending upon the
amount of compensatory damages that may be awarded to the claimant; (2) the claimant
must rst establish his ght to moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages;
(3) the wrongful act must be accompanied by bad faith and the award would be allowed
only if the guilty party acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent
manner.

DECISION

TEEHANKEE , J : p

Petitioner Diosdado Octot sought in this action of mandamus his reinstatement in the
government service as Security Guard in Regional Health Of ce No. VII, Cebu City from
which he was summarily dismissed "for being notoriously undesirable."
It appears that petitioner was employed as Security Guard since 1970 and at the time of
his separation from the service was receiving a salary of P4,632 per annum, plus P50.00
per month as cost of living allowance. On October 1, 1975, petitioner was summarily
dismissed pursuant to P.D. No. 6 and LOI Nos. 14 and 14-A directing heads of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 departments and agencies of the government to weed out undesirable government
of cials and employees, speci cally those who were facing charges or were notoriously
undesirable on ground of dishonesty, incompetence or other kinds of misconduct de ned
in the Civil Service Law. Petitioner had been convicted by the Court of First Instance of
Cebu of the crime of libel, but his appeal therefrom was pending in the Court of Appeals.
Believing that his dismissal was illegal, petitioner continued reporting for work the whole
month of October, 1975 but respondent Regional Director refused to order the release of
his salary for the period and instead ordered that his name be deleted from the of ce
payroll. cdll

In due time, petitioner was acquitted of the libel case by the Court of Appeals. On March
10, 1977, one Mr. Alfredo Imbong wrote to the Undersecretary of Justice seeking
assistance to reinstate petitioner to his former position which letter was forwarded by the
Undersecretary of Justice to the Secretary of Health on March 22, 1977. When the letter-
request was referred by the Secretary of Health to the Regional Health Of ce for comment,
Dr. Felicito Aniceto, Of cer-in-Charge of the same regional of ce favorably recommended
petitioner's reinstatement, not only because of petitioner's acquittal in the criminal case
but also because of his satisfactory performance rating.
Petitioner's papers were likewise favorably acted upon by the Presidential Executive
Assistant but in returning the papers to the Secretary of Health, attention was invited to the
provision of LOI No. 647, dated December 27, 1977. 1
The papers were then forwarded to herein petitioner informing him that his request for
reinstatement may now be given due course.
When petitioner failed to appear, petitioner was personally furnished sometime on May,
1978 by Personnel Of cer Ramon R. Encarnacion with the necessary papers to be lled up
to support his new appointment. This notwithstanding, petitioner again sent a letter, dated
June 6, 1978, to respondent Secretary of Health, reiterating his request for reinstatement
and demanding back salaries from the date of his dismissal from the service, furnishing
the Regional Health Director a copy thereof, who upon receipt of his copy, contacted
petitioner instructing him to come so that the necessary papers for his new appointment
could be prepared. Again, petitioner did not appear, and instead led the instant petition
for mandamus wherein he prays that respondents be ordered (1) to reinstate him to his
former position (2) to pay his back salary, as well as the cost of living allowance of P50.00
a month from the date of his alleged dismissal (3) to grant him compensatory, exemplary
and moral damages (4) to pay his attorney's fees and cost of the suit.
Since petitioner's right to reinstatement was not effectively disputed, for his reinstatement
had been authorized by the Of ce of the President of the Philippines, (although the
Solicitor General in his comment prayed for denial of the petition) this Court in a resolution
dated January 29, 1979 directed respondents public of cials to immediately reinstate
petitioner to his former position. In compliance therewith, petitioner was reappointed and
his appointment duly attested by the Civil Service Commission on May 23, 1979. Petitioner
reported for duty on June 11, 1979.
The remaining question to be resolved under the Court's aforesaid Resolution is whether
petitioner is entitled to his claim for backwages from the date of his dismissal in 1975 up
to the date of reinstatement and damages. In the absence of proof that respondent
Regional Director acted in bad faith and with grave abuse of discretion, petitioner is not
entitled to backwages 2 and consequently cannot claim for damages. In the case at bar,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 the record manifests that respondents of cials were not motivated by ill will or personal
malice in dismissing petitioner but only by their desire to comply with the mandates of
Presidential Decree No. 6. Accordingly, when petitioner was acquitted by the Court of
Appeals, and made a request for his reinstatement, respondents readily showed their
willingness to take him back and recommended to the authorities concerned his
reinstatement. Moreover, the Of ce of the President of the Philippines, in approving the
reinstatement of petitioner, speci cally invited attention to the provisions of LOI No. 647
which does not authorize payment of backwages of reinstated employees.

The Court likewise denies petitioner's claim for moral damages, because as pointed out by
the Solicitor General, if there was any delay in his reinstatement, it was attributed to his
own fault and negligence. After his reinstatement was authorized by the Of ce of the
President, respondents had promptly communicated with him, directing him to report to
the Regional Of ce and accomplish the necessary papers for his reinstatement, but he
delayed doing so, as above stated. It is clear that since the separation of petitioner from
the government service had not been shown to be in bad faith, an award for damages
under the circumstances would not be just and proper. Neither is it among the cases
mentioned in Articles 2219 and 2220 of the Civil Code wherein moral damages may be
recovered. llcd

Exemplary damages are not generally recoverable in a special civil action for mandamus
unless the defendant patently acted with vindictiveness or wantonness and not in the
exercise of honest judgment. The claim for exemplary damages must presuppose the
existence of the circumstances enumerated in Articles 2231 and 2232 of the Civil Code. 3
Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the
public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages. 4
Such damages are required by public policy, for wanton acts must be suppressed. They
are an antidote so that the poison of wickedness may not run through the body politic. 5
Thus, our jurisprudence sets certain conditions when exemplary damages may be
awarded, as follows:
First: They may be imposed by way of example or correction only in addition, among
others, to compensatory damages, and cannot be recovered as a matter of right, their
determination depending upon the amount of compensatory damages that may be
awarded to the claimant. 6
Second: The claimant must rst establish his right to moral, temperate, liquidate or
compensatory damages. 7
Third: The wrongful act must be accompanied by bad faith, 8 and the award would be
allowed only if the guilty party acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or
malevolent manner. 9
ACCORDINGLY, considering that petitioner has already been reinstated to his former
position since 1979 pursuant to the Court's Resolution of January 29, 1979, the petition for
mandamus for his reinstatement is now moot. Petitioner's claim for backwages and
damages is hereby denied. No costs.
Makasiar, Fernandez, Guerrero, Melencio-Herrera and Plana, JJ., concur.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com

 Footnotes

1. TO: All Heads of Departments, bureaus, of ces, agencies and instrumentalities of the
Government.

All concerned:

WHEREAS, it has been observed that many of the of cials and employees purged in
September, 1975, have been found to be innocent of the charges leveled against them;

WHEREAS, in several administrative orders that I have issued, many of them have been
ordered reinstated to their former positions upon recommendation of the Appeals
Committee created under Administrative Order No. 370, series of 1975;

WHEREAS, in order to end anxiety among the deserving of cials and employees not yet
reinstated up to the present, it is necessary that their cases should be decided once and
for all.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the

powers vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby order and direct:

1. All of cials and employees who were not recommended for reinstatement by the Appeals
Committee but are quali ed to reenter the government service are hereby granted
executive clemency for purposes of reemployment subject to Civil Service Law and rules
if recommended by their respective department heads.

2. All of cials and employees who cannot be reinstated for any reason shall be allowed to
retire, if qualified, or receive such other benefits granted by law.

All Heads of Departments, bureaus, of ces, agencies and instrumentalities of the Government,
are hereby enjoined to strictly comply with these instructions.

These instructions shall take effect immediately.

2. San Miguel Corporation vs. Secretary of Labor, 64 SCRA 56.

3. Corpus vs. Cuaderno, Sr., 13 SCRA 59.

4. Article 2279, Civil Code.

5. Report of the Code Commission, pages 75-76.

6. Philippine Rabbit Bus vs. Mendoza, 26 SCRA 731.

7. Yutuk vs. Manila Electric Co., 2 SCRA 337.

8. Corpus vs. Cuaderno, Sr., supra.

9. Ong Yiu vs. CA, 91 SCRA 223.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com