Republic of the Philippines Cruz was adjudged guilty of grave misconduct for his alleged

SUPREME COURT utterance of such maligning statements, "MASASAMANG TAO

Manila ANG MGA BOD AT GENERAL MANAGER". However, such
utterance, even if it were true, does not constitute a flagrant
EN BANC disregard of rule or was actuated by corrupt motive. To the
mind of the Commission, it was a mere expression of disgust
over the management style of the GM and the Board of
G.R. No. 187858 August 9, 2011 Directors, especially when due notice is taken of the fact that
the latter officials were charged with the Ombudsman for
THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Petitioner, various anomalous transactions.5
vs.
RICHARD G. CRUZ, Respondent. In ruling that the charge of dishonesty had no factual basis, the
CSC declared:
DECISION
Based on the records of the case, the Commission is not
BRION, J.: swayed that the failure of Cruz to record his attendance on
April 21 and 22, 2007 and May 5, 2007, while claiming
This petition for review on certiorari assails the decision1 and overtime pay therefor, amounts to dishonesty. Cruz duly
the resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. submitted evidence showing his actual rendition of work on
105410. These assailed CA rulings reversed and set aside the those days. The residents of the place where he worked
ruling of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) in Resolution No. attested to his presence thereat on the days in question. 6
0803053 that denied respondent Richard G. Cruz’s prayer for
the award of back salaries as a result of his reinstatement to The CSC, however, found the respondent liable for violation of
his former position. reasonable office rules for his failure to log in and log out. It
imposed on him the penalty of reprimand but did not order the
THE FACTS payment of back salaries.

The respondent, Storekeeper A of the City of Malolos Water The CMWD and the respondent separately filed motions for
District (CMWD), was charged with grave misconduct and reconsideration against the CSC ruling. CMWD questioned the
dishonesty by CMWD General Manager (GM) Nicasio Reyes. CSC’s findings and the respondent’s reinstatement. The
He allegedly uttered a false, malicious and damaging respondent, for his part, claimed that he is entitled to back
statement (Masasamang tao ang mga BOD at General salaries in light of his exoneration from the charges of grave
Manager) against GM Reyes and the rest of the CMWD Board misconduct and dishonesty. The CSC denied both motions.
of Directors (Board); four of the respondent’s subordinates
allegedly witnessed the utterance. The dishonesty charge, in Both the CMWD and the respondent elevated the CSC ruling
turn, stemmed from the respondent’s act of claiming overtime to the CA via separate petitions for review under Rule 43 of the
pay despite his failure to log in and out in the computerized Rules of Court. The CA dismissed the CMWD’s petition and
daily time record for three working days. this ruling has lapsed to finality.7 Hence, the issue of
reinstatement is now a settled matter. As outlined below, the
The respondent denied the charges against him. On the CA ruled in the respondent’s favor on the issue of back
charge of grave misconduct, he stressed that three of the four salaries. This ruling is the subject of the present petition with
witnesses already retracted their statements against him. On us.
the charge of dishonesty, he asserted that he never failed to
log in and log out. He reasoned that the lack of record was CA RULING
caused by technical computer problems. The respondent
submitted documents showing that he rendered overtime work Applying the ruling in Bangalisan v. Hon. CA,8 the CA found
on the three days that the CMWD questioned. merit in the respondent’s appeal and awarded him back
salaries from the time he was dismissed up to his actual
GM Reyes preventively suspended the respondent for 15 days. reinstatement. The CA reasoned out that CSC Resolution No.
Before the expiration of his preventive suspension, however, 080305 totally exonerated the respondent from the charges
GM Reyes, with the approval of the CMWD Board, found the laid against him. The CA considered the charge of dishonesty
respondent guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty, and successfully refuted as the respondent showed that he
dismissed him from the service.4 performed overtime service. The CA thereby rejected the
CSC’s contention that the charge of dishonesty had been
CSC RULING merely downgraded to a lesser offense; the CA saw the finding
in CSC Resolution No. 080305 to be for an offense (failing to
properly record his attendance) entirely different from the
The respondent elevated the findings of the CMWD and his dishonesty charge because their factual bases are different.
dismissal to the CSC, which absolved him of the two charges Thus, to the CA, CSC Resolution No. 080305 did not wholly
and ordered his reinstatement. In CSC Resolution No. 080305, restore the respondent’s rights as an exonerated employee as
the CSC found no factual basis to support the charges of grave it failed to order the payment of his back salaries. The CA
misconduct and dishonesty. denied the CSC’s motion for reconsideration.

In ruling that the respondent was not liable for grave ISSUE
misconduct, the CSC held:
WHETHER OR NOT [THE] RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO We deny the petition for lack of merit.
BACK SALARIES AFTER THE CSC ORDERED HIS
REINSTATEMENT TO HIS FORMER POSITION, The issue of entitlement to back salaries, for the period of
CONSONANT WITH THE CSC RULING THAT HE WAS suspension pending appeal,13 of a government employee who
GUILTY ONLY OF VIOLATION OF REASONABLE OFFICE had been dismissed but was subsequently exonerated is
RULES AND REGULATIONS.9 settled in our jurisdiction. The Court’s starting point for this
outcome is the "no work-no pay" principle – public officials are
CSC’s position only entitled to compensation if they render service. We have
excepted from this general principle and awarded back salaries
The CSC submits that the CA erred in applying the ruling in even for unworked days to illegally dismissed or unjustly
Bangalisan, requiring as a condition for entitlement to back suspended employees based on the constitutional provision
salaries that the government employee be found innocent of that "no officer or employee in the civil service shall be
the charge and that the suspension be unjustified. CSC removed or suspended except for cause provided by law";14 to
Resolution No. 080305 did not fully exculpate the respondent deny these employees their back salaries amounts to
but found him liable for a lesser offense. Likewise, the unwarranted punishment after they have been exonerated from
respondent’s preventive suspension pending appeal was the charge that led to their dismissal or suspension.15
justified because he was not exonerated.
The present legal basis for an award of back salaries is Section
The CSC also submits that the factual considerations in 47, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987.
Bangalisan are entirely different from the circumstances of the
present case. In Bangalisan, the employee, Rodolfo Mariano, a Section 47. Disciplinary Jurisdiction. – x x x.
public school teacher, was charged with grave misconduct for
allegedly participating, together with his fellow teachers, in an (4) An appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory,
illegal mass action. He was ordered exonerated from the and in case the penalty is suspension or removal, the
misconduct charge because of proof that he did not actually respondent shall be considered as having been under
participate in the mass action, but was absent from work for preventive suspension during the pendency of the appeal in
another reason. Although the employee was found liable for the event he wins an appeal. (italics ours)
violation of office rules and regulations, he was considered
totally exonerated because his infraction stemmed from an act
entirely different (his failure to file a leave of absence) from the This provision, however, on its face, does not support a claim
act that was the basis of the grave misconduct charge (the for back salaries since it does not expressly provide for back
unjustified abandonment of classes to the prejudice of the salaries during this period; our established rulings hold that
students). back salaries may not be awarded for the period of preventive
suspension16 as the law itself authorizes its imposition so that
its legality is beyond question.
The CSC argues that in the present case, the charge of
dishonesty and the infraction committed by the respondent
stemmed from a single act – his failure to properly record his To resolve the seeming conflict, the Court crafted two
attendance. Thus, the respondent cannot be considered totally conditions before an employee may be entitled to back
exonerated; the charge of dishonesty was merely downgraded salaries: a) the employee must be found innocent of the
to a violation of reasonable office rules and regulations. charges and b) his suspension must be unjustified.17 The
reasoning behind these conditions runs this way: although an
employee is considered under preventive suspension during
Accordingly, the CSC posits that the case should have been the pendency of a successful appeal, the law itself only
decided according to our rulings in Jacinto v. CA10 and De la authorizes preventive suspension for a fixed period; hence, his
Cruz v. CA11 where we held the award of back salaries to be suspension beyond this fixed period is unjustified and must be
inappropriate because the teachers involved were not fully compensated.
exonerated from the charges laid against them.
The CSC’s rigid and mechanical application of these two
The respondent’s position conditions may have resulted from a misreading of our rulings
on the matter; hence, a look at our jurisprudence appears in
The respondent maintains that he is entitled to reinstatement order.
and back salaries because CSC Resolution No. 080305
exonerated him from the charges laid against him; for the Basis for award of back salaries
purpose of entitlement to back salaries, what should control is
his exoneration from the charges leveled against him by the
CMWD. That the respondent was found liable for a violation The Court had the occasion to rule on the issue of entitlement
different from that originally charged is immaterial for purposes to back salaries as early as 1941,18 when Section 260 of the
of the back salary issue. Revised Administrative Code of 1917 (RAC)19 was the
governing law. The Court held that a government employee,
who was suspended from work pending final action on his
The respondent also asserts that the Bangalisan ruling administrative case, is not entitled to back salaries where he
squarely applies since the CSC formally admitted in its was ultimately removed due to the valid appointment of his
Comment to CMWD’s petition for review before the CA that the successor. No exoneration or reinstatement, of course, was
penalty of reprimand is not a reduced penalty for the penalty of directly involved in this case; thus, the question of back
dismissal imposable for grave misconduct and dishonesty. 12 salaries after exoneration and reinstatement did not directly
arise. The Court, however, made the general statement that:
THE COURT’S RULING
As a general proposition, a public official is not entitled to any x x x [T]he modified decision did not exonerate the petitioners.
compensation if he has not rendered any service, and the x x x And even if we consider the punishment as suspension,
justification for the payment of salary during the period of before a public official or employee is entitled to payment of
suspension is that the suspension was unjustified orthat the salaries withheld, it should be shown that the suspension was
official was innocent. Hence, the requirement that, to entitle to unjustified or that the employee was innocent of the charges
payment of salary during suspension, there must be either proffered against him.26
reinstatement of the suspended person or exoneration if death
should render reinstatement impossible.20 (emphasis and On the whole, these rulings left the application of the conditions
underscoring ours) for the award of back salaries far from clear. Jurisprudence did
not strictly observe the requirements earlier enunciated in
In Austria v. Auditor General,21 a high school principal, who Gonzales as under subsequent rulings, the innocence of the
was penalized with demotion, claimed payment of back employee alone served as basis for the award of back salaries.
salaries from the time of his suspension until his appointment
to the lower position to which he was demoted. He argued that The innocence of the employee as sole basis for an award of
his later appointment even if only to a lower position of back salaries
classroom teacher amounted to a reinstatement under Section
260 of the RAC. The Court denied his claim, explaining that the
reinstatement under Section 260 of the RAC refers to the same In Tan v. Gimenez, etc., and Aguilar, etc.,27 we ruled that the
position from which the subordinate officer or employee was payment of back salary to a government employee, who was
suspended and, therefore, does not include demotional illegally removed from office because of his eventual
appointments. The word "reinstatement" was apparently exoneration on appeal, is merely incidental to the ordered
equated to exoneration. reinstatement.

In the 1961 case of Gonzales v. Hon. Hernandez, etc. and Tan was subsequently reiterated in Tañala v. Legaspi, et
Fojas22 interpreting the same provision, the Court first laid al.,28 a case involving an employee who was administratively
down the requisites for entitlement to back salaries. Said the dismissed from the service following his conviction in the
Court: criminal case arising from the same facts as in the
administrative case. On appeal, however, he was acquitted of
the criminal charge and was ultimately ordered reinstated by
A perusal of the decisions of this Court23 x x x show[s] that the Office of the President. Failing to secure his actual
back salaries are ordered paid to an officer or an employee reinstatement, he filed a mandamus petition to compel his
only if he is exonerated of the charge against him and his superiors to reinstate him and to pay his back salaries from the
suspension or dismissal is found and declared to be illegal. In date of his suspension to the date of his actual reinstatement.
the case at bar, [the employee] was not completely We found merit in his plea and held:
exonerated, because although the decision of the
Commissioner of Civil Service [ordering separation from
service] was modified and [the employee] was allowed to be [The employee] had been acquitted of the criminal charges x x
reinstated, the decision [imposed upon the employee the x, and the President had reversed the decision x x x in the
penalty of two months suspension without pay]. [emphasis and administrative case which ordered his separation from the
underscoring ours] service, and the President had ordered his reinstatement to his
position, it results that the suspension and the separation from
the service of the [employee] were thereby considered illegal. x
Obviously, no exoneration actually resulted and no back salary x x.
was due; the liability for the offense charged remained, but a
lesser penalty was imposed.
x x x [In this case,] by virtue of [the President’s order of
reinstatement], [the employee’s] suspension and separation
In Villamor, et al. v. Hon. Lacson, et al., the City Mayor
24
from the service x x x was thereby declared illegal, so that for
ordered the dismissal from the service of city employees after all intents and purposes he must be considered as not having
finding them guilty as charged. On appeal, however, the been separated from his office. The lower court has correctly
decision was modified by considering "the suspension of over held that the [employee] is entitled to back salaries.29
one year x x x, already suffered x x x [to be] sufficient
punishment"25 and by ordering their immediate reinstatement to
the service. The employees thereupon claimed that under The Tañala ruling was reiterated in Cristobal v. Melchor, 30 Tan,
Section 695 of the RAC, the punishment of suspension without Jr. v. Office of the President,31 De Guzman v. CSC32and Del
pay cannot exceed two (2) months. Since the period they were Castillo v. CSC33 - cases involving government employees who
not allowed to work until their reinstatement exceeded two were dismissed after being found administratively liable, but
months, they should be entitled to back salaries corresponding who were subsequently exonerated on appeal.
to the period in excess of two months. In denying the
employees’ claim for back salaries, the Court held: In Garcia v. Chairman Commission on Audit,34 the Court held
that – where the employee, who was dismissed after being
The fallacy of [the employees’] argument springs from their found administratively liable for dishonesty, was acquitted on a
assumption that the modified decision had converted the finding of innocence in the criminal case (for qualified theft)
penalty to that of suspension. The modified decision connotes based on the same acts for which he was dismissed – the
that although dismissal or resignation would be the proper executive pardon granted him in the administrative case (in
penalty, the separation from work for the period until their light of his prior acquittal) entitled him to back salaries from the
reinstatement, would be deemed sufficient. Said decision did time of his illegal dismissal up to his actual reinstatement.
not, in the least, insinuate that suspension should have been
the penalty. The above situation should be distinguished from the case of
an employee who was dismissed from the service after
conviction of a crime and who was ordered reinstated after time of his actual reinstatement – to be a sufficient ground to
being granted pardon. We held that he was not entitled to back award him back salaries.
salaries since he was not illegally dismissed nor acquitted of
the charge against him.35 The rule on payment of back salaries during the period of
suspension of a member of the civil service who is
Incidentally, under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,36 if subsequently ordered reinstated, is already settled in this
the public official or employee is acquitted of the criminal jurisdiction. Such payment of salaries corresponding to the
charge/s specified in the law, he is entitled to reinstatement period when an employee is not allowed to work may be
and the back salaries withheld during his suspension, unless in decreed not only if he is found innocent of the charges which
the meantime administrative proceedings have been filed caused his suspension (Sec. 35, RA 2260), but also when the
against him. suspension is unjustified.

In Tan, Jr. v. Office of the President,37 the Court clarified that In the present case, upon receipt of the [Civil Service
the silence of Section 42 (Lifting of Preventive Suspension Commissioner’s] decision x x x finding [Abellera] guilty, but
Pending Administrative Investigation) of the Civil Service even before the period to appeal had expired, [the Baguio City
Decree38 on the payment of back salaries, unlike its officials] dismissed [Abellera] from the service and another one
predecessor,39 is no reason to deny back salaries to a was appointed to replace him. [Abellera’s] separation x x x
dismissed civil servant who was ultimately exonerated. before the decision of the Civil Service Commissioner had
become final was evidently premature. [The Baguio City
Section 42 of P.D. No. 807, however, is really not in point x x x officials] should have realized that [Abellera] still had the right
[as] it does not cover dismissed civil servants who are to appeal the Commissioner's decision to the Civil Service
ultimately exonerated and ordered reinstated to their former or Board of Appeals within a specified period, and the possibility
equivalent positions. The rule in the latter instance, just as we of that decision being reversed or modified.42 As it did happen
have said starting with the case of Cristobal vs. Melchor is that on such appeal x x x the penalty imposed by the Commissioner
when "a government official or employee in the classified civil was reduced x x x to only 2 months suspension. And yet, by
service had been illegally dismissed, and his reinstatement had [the Baguio City officials’] action, [Abellera] was deprived of
later been ordered, for all legal purposes he is considered as work for more than 2 years. Clearly, Abellera’s second
not having left his office, so that he is entitled to all the rights suspension from office [i.e., from the time he was dismissed up
and privileges that accrue to him by virtue of the office that he to his actual reinstatement] was unjustified, and the payment of
held."40 the salaries corresponding to said period is, consequently,
proper.43 (emphases and underscoring ours)
These cited cases illustrate that a black and white observance
of the requisites in Gonzales is not required at all times. The The import of the Abellera ruling was explained by the Court in
common thread in these cases is either the employee’s the subsequent case of Yarcia v. City of Baguio44that involved
complete exoneration of the administrative charge against him substantially similar facts. The Court clarified that the award of
(i.e., the employee is not found guilty of any other offense), or back salaries in Abellera was based on the premature
the employee’s acquittal of the criminal charge based on his execution of the decision (ordering the employee’s dismissal
innocence. If the case presented falls on either of these from the service), resulting in the employee’s unjustified
instances, the conditions laid down in Gonzales become the "second suspension." Under the then Civil Service Rules, the
two sides of the same coin; the requirement that the Commissioner of Civil Service had the discretion to order the
suspension must be unjustified is automatically subsumed in immediate execution of his decision in administrative cases "in
the other requirement of exoneration. the interest of public service." Unlike in Abellera, this discretion
was exercised in Yarcia; consequently, the employee’s
separation from the service pending his appeal "remained valid
Illegal suspension as sole basis for an award of back salaries and effective until it was set aside and modified with the
imposition of the lesser penalty."45
By requiring the concurrence of the two conditions, Gonzales
apparently made a distinction between exoneration and The unjustified "second suspension" mentioned in Abellera
unjustified suspension/dismissal. This distinction runs counter actually refers to the period when the employee was dismissed
to the notion that if an employee is exonerated, the exoneration from the service up to the time of his actual reinstatement.
automatically makes an employee’s suspension unjustified. Under our present legal landscape, this period refers to
However, in Abellera v. City of Baguio, et al.,41 the Court had "suspension pending appeal."46
the occasion to illustrate the independent character of these
two conditions so that the mere illegality of an employee’s
suspension could serve as basis for an award of back salaries. In Miranda v. Commission on Audit,47 the Court again had the
occasion to consider the illegality of the suspension of the
employee as a separate ground to award back salaries.
Abellera, a cashier in the Baguio City Treasurer’s Office, was Following the filing of several administrative charges against
ordered dismissed from the service after being found guilty of him, Engr. Lamberto Miranda was "preventively" suspended
dishonesty and gross negligence. Even before the period to from June 2, 1978 to May 7, 1986. He was reinstated on May
appeal expired, the City of Baguio dismissed him from the 22, 1986. On October 7, 1986, the administrative case against
service. On appeal, however, the penalty imposed on him was him was finally dismissed "for lack of evidence." When his
reduced "to two months suspension, without pay" although the claim for back salaries (from the time he was "preventively"
appealed decision was affirmed "in all other respects." suspended up to his actual reinstatement) was denied by the
Commission on Audit, he brought a certiorari petition with this
When the issue of Abellera’s entitlement to back salaries Court.
reached the Court, we considered the illegality of Abellera’s
suspension - i.e., from the time he was dismissed up to the
In granting the petition, the Court ruled that since the However, the [CSC], in the questioned resolution, made [the]
law48 limits the duration of preventive suspension to a fixed finding that Mariano was not involved in the "mass actions" but
period, Engr. Miranda’s suspension for almost eight (8) years is was absent because he was in Ilocos Sur to attend the wake
"unreasonable and unjustified." Additionally, the Court and interment of his grandmother. Although the CSC imposed
observed that the dropping of the administrative case against upon him the penalty of reprimand, the same was for his
Engr. Miranda for lack of evidence "is even an eloquent violation of reasonable office rules and regulations because he
manifestation that the suspension is unjustified." 49 The Court failed to inform the school or his intended absence and neither
held: did he file an application for leave covering such absences.

This being so, Engineer Miranda is entitled to backwages xxxx

during the period of his suspension as it is already settled in
this jurisdiction that a government official or employee is However, with regard to the other petitioners, the payment of
entitled to backwages not only if he is exonerated in the their back wages must be denied. Although the penalty
administrative case but also when the suspension is imposed on them was only suspension, they were not
unjustified.50 (emphases and underscoring ours) completely exonerated of the charges against them. The CSC
made specific findings that, unlike petitioner Mariano, they
Jurisprudential definition of exoneration indeed participated in the mass actions. It will be noted that it
was their participation in the mass actions that was the very
The mere reduction of the penalty on appeal does not entitle a basis of the charges against them and their subsequent
government employee to back salaries if he was not suspension.56
exonerated of the charge against him. This is the Court’s
teaching in City Mayor of Zamboanga v. CA.51 In this case, the Bangalisan clearly laid down the principle that if the
employee was initially found guilty of disgraceful and immoral exoneration of the employee is relative (as distinguished from
conduct and was given the penalty of dismissal by the City complete exoneration), an inquiry into the factual premise of
Mayor of Zamboanga. On appeal, however, the CA limited the the offense charged and of the offense committed must be
employee’s guilt to improper conduct and correspondingly made. If the administrative offense found to have been actually
reduced the penalty to "six-months suspension without pay committed is of lesser gravity than the offense charged, the
with a stern warning that repetition of the same or similar employee cannot be considered exonerated if the factual
offense will be dealt with more severely." 52 The CA also premise for the imposition of the lesser penalty remains the
awarded him "full backwages."53 same. The employee found guilty of a lesser offense may only
be entitled to back salaries when the offense actually
We held that the CA erred in awarding back salaries by committed does not carry the penalty of more than one month
reiterating the principle that back salaries may be ordered paid suspension or dismissal.57
to an officer or employee only if he is exonerated of the charge
against him and his suspension or dismissal is found and Bangalisan reiterated that the payment of back salaries, during
declared to be illegal.54 the period of suspension of a member of the civil service who
is subsequently ordered reinstated, may be decreed only if the
The Court had the occasion to explain what constitutes employee is found innocent of the charges which caused the
"exoneration" in Bangalisan v. Hon. CA,55 the respondent’s suspension and when the suspension is unjustified. This
cited case. In this case, the Secretary of Education found the pronouncement was re-echoed in Jacinto v. CA,58 De la Cruz v.
public school teachers guilty as charged and imposed on them CA,59 and Hon. Gloria v. CA.60 Taking off from Bangalisan, the
the penalty of dismissal. On appeal, the CSC affirmed the Court in De la Cruz categorically stated:
Secretary’s ruling but reduced the penalty imposed to
suspension without pay. However, the CSC found one of the The issue of whether back wages may be awarded to teachers
teachers (Mariano) guilty only of violation of reasonable office ordered reinstated to the service after the dismissal orders x x
rules and regulations, and only penalized her with reprimand. x were commuted by the CSC to six (6) months suspension is
None of the petitioning public school teachers were awarded already settled.
back salaries.
In Bangalisan v. Court of Appeals, we resolved the issue in the
On appeal to this Court, we awarded back salaries to Mariano. negative on the ground that the teachers were neither
We explained that since the factual premise of the exonerated nor unjustifiably suspended, two (2) circumstances
administrative charges against him - i.e., his alleged necessary for the grant of back wages in administrative
participation in the illegal mass actions, and his suspension - disciplinary cases.61
was amply rebutted, then Mariano was in effect exonerated of
the charges against him and was, thus, entitled to back In Hon. Gloria, involving the same factual situation as
salaries for the period of his suspension pending appeal. Bangalisan, the CA awarded the public school teachers back
salaries - for the period beyond the allowable period of
With respect to petitioner Rodolfo Mariano, payment of his preventive suspension - since they were ultimately exonerated.
back wages is in order. A reading of the resolution of the [CSC] In affirming the CA, the Court distinguished preventive
will show that he was exonerated of the charges which formed suspension from suspension pending appeal for the purpose of
the basis for his suspension. The Secretary of the DECS determining the extent of an employee’s entitlement to back
charged him with and he was later found guilty of grave salaries. The Court ruled that under Executive Order (E.O.) No.
misconduct x x x [and] conduct prejudicial to the best interest 292, there are two kinds of preventive suspension of civil
of the service x x x for his participation in the mass actions x x service employees who are charged with offenses punishable
x. It was his alleged participation in the mass actions that was by removal or suspension: (i) preventive suspension pending
the basis of his preventive suspension and, later, his dismissal investigation62 and (ii) preventive suspension pending
from the service. appeal;63 compensation is due only for the period of preventive
suspensionpending appeal should the employee be ultimately claimed that they were entitled to back salaries from the time of
exonerated.64 Citing Floyd R. Mechem's A Treatise on the Law their dismissal or suspension until their reinstatement, arguing
of Public Offices and Officers,65 Hon. Gloria ruled: that they were totally exonerated from the charges since they
were found guilty only of conduct prejudicial to the best interest
Thus, it is not enough that an employee is exonerated of the of the service.
charges against him. In addition, his suspension must be
unjustified. The case of Bangalisan v. Court of Appeals itself Under this factual backdrop, we applied the two conditions and
similarly states that "payment of salaries corresponding to the distinguished between the teachers who were absent from their
period [1] when an employee is not allowed to work may be respective classes because they participated in the illegal
decreed if he is found innocent of the charges which caused mass action, on one hand, and the teachers who were absent
his suspension and [2] when the suspension is for some other reason, on the other hand.
unjustified."66 (emphases and underscoring ours)
With respect to the teachers who participated in the illegal
A careful reading of these cases would reveal that a strict mass actions, we ruled that they were not entitled to back
observance of the second condition for an award of back salaries since they were not exonerated. We explained that
salaries becomes important only if the employee is not totally liability for a lesser offense, carrying a penalty less than
innocent of any administrative infraction. As previously dismissal, is not equivalent to exoneration. On the second
discussed, where the employee is completely exonerated of condition, we ruled that their suspension is not unjustified since
the administrative charge or acquitted in the criminal case they have given a ground for their suspension – i.e., the
arising from the same facts based on a finding of innocence, unjustified abandonment of their classes to the prejudice of
the second requirement becomes subsumed in the first. their students, the very factual premise of the administrative
Otherwise, a determination of the act/s and offense/s actually charges against them – for which they were suspended.
committed and of the corresponding penalty imposed has to be
made. With respect to the teachers who were away from their classes
but did not participate in the illegal strike, the Court awarded
Unjustified suspension them back salaries, considering that: first, they did not commit
the act for which they were dismissed and suspended;
On the suspension/dismissal aspect, this second condition is and second, they were found guilty of another offense, i.e.,
met upon a showing that the separation from office is not violation of reasonable office rules and regulations which is not
warranted under the circumstances because the government penalized with suspension or dismissal. The Court ruled that
employee gave no cause for suspension or dismissal. This these teachers were totally exonerated of the charge, and
squarely applies in cases where the government employee did found their dismissal and suspension likewise unjustified since
not commit the offense charged, punishable by suspension or the offense they were found to have committed only merited
dismissal (total exoneration); or the government employee is the imposition of the penalty of reprimand. 1avv phi 1

found guilty of another offense for an act different from that for
which he was charged. These cases show the Court’s consistent stand in determining
the propriety of the award of back salaries. The government
Bangalisan, Jacinto and De la Cruz illustrate employees must not only be found innocent of the charges;
their suspension must likewise be shown to be unjustified.
the application of the two conditions
The Present Case
Both the CA and the respondent applied Bangalisan to justify
the award of back salaries. The CSC argues against this We find that the CA was correct in awarding the respondent his
position with the claim that the rulings in Jacinto and De la back salaries during the period he was suspended from work,
Cruz, not Bangalisan, should apply. After due consideration, following his dismissal until his reinstatement to his former
we see no reason why the cited rulings and their application position. The records show that the charges of grave
should be pitted against one another; they essentially espouse misconduct and dishonesty against him were not
the same conclusions after applying the two conditions for the substantiated. As the CSC found, there was no corrupt motive
payment of back salaries. showing malice on the part of the respondent in making the
complained utterance. Likewise, the CSC found that the charge
of dishonesty was well refuted by the respondent’s evidence
Bangalisan, Jacinto and De la Cruz all stemmed from the showing that he rendered overtime work on the days in
illegal mass actions of public school teachers in Metro Manila question.
in 1990. The teachers were charged with grave misconduct,
gross neglect of duty, and gross violation of civil service law,
rules and regulations, among others. The then Secretary of We fully respect the factual findings of the CSC especially
Education found them guilty and dismissed them from the since the CA affirmed these factual findings. However, on the
service. The CSC, on appeal, ordered the teachers reinstated, legal issue of the respondent’s entitlement to back salaries, we
but withheld the grant of their back salaries. The CSC found are fully in accord with the CA’s conclusion that the two
the teachers liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of conditions to justify the award of back salaries exist in the
the service and imposed on them the penalty of suspension. present case.
The CSC reasoned that since the teachers were not totally
exculpated from the charge (but were found guilty of a lesser The first condition was met since the offense which the
offense), they could not be awarded back salaries. respondent was found guilty of (violation of reasonable rules
and regulations) stemmed from an act (failure to log in and log
When these cases reached the Court, the issue of the out) different from the act of dishonesty (claiming overtime pay
teachers’ entitlement to back salaries was raised. The teachers
despite his failure to render overtime work) that he was
charged with.

The second condition was met as the respondent’s committed

offense merits neither dismissal from the service nor
suspension (for more than one month), but only reprimand.

In sum, the respondent is entitled to back salaries from the

time he was dismissed by the CMWD until his reinstatement to
his former position - i.e., for the period of his preventive
suspension pending appeal. For the period of his preventive
suspension pending investigation, the respondent is not
entitled to any back salaries per our ruling in Hon. Gloria. 67

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. Costs against

the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice