Home of ChanRobles Virtual Law Library

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 110936. February 4, 1994.]

FRANCISCO A. TAN, JR., Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, RENATO C. CORONA, In His Capacity as Assistant Secretary for Legal Affairs, Office of the President, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, COMMISSION ON AUDIT, and ANDRES R. MENGUITO, Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; MOTION TO DISMISS; RULE IN CASE THERE IS PENDING ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION; RATIONALE. — In the instant appeal, the petitioners raise the same issues that have heretofore been resolved by us in the now decided case of "Vidad, Et. Al. v. RTC of Negros Oriental, Et Al., etc., in G.R. Nos. 98084, 98922 and 100300-03, already decided by this Court on 18 October 1993. There, we have ruled that it has indeed been precipitate for the DECS officials to seek the dismissal of the complaints filed in court by the school teachers even as no restraining order could lawfully issue against the continuation of the administrative investigations. This Court has rationalized, thus - (1) There being no dispute that the root of the cases filed before the court a quo deals on the performance of official functions by the DECS officials, there cannot be a full determination on whether the actions taken by them have been proper or improper, or whether they have acted in good faith or bad faith, pending a full hearing that would give all the parties a chance to ventilate their respective claims; (2) Public officials are not necessarily immune from damages in their personal capacities arising from acts done in bad faith, for if malice is indeed established, public officials can no longer be said to have acted within the scope of official authority so as to still find protection under the mantle of immunity for official actions; (3) To issuance, however, of the restraining orders by the lower court against further proceedings on the administrative complaints is inappropriate inasmuch as the authority of the DECS Regional Director to issue the return to work memorandum, to initiate the administrative charges, as well as to constitute the investigating panel, can hardly be disputed; and (4) The court cases and the administrative matters being closely interrelated, if not interlinked, it behooves the court, in the interest of good order and conformably with the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, to suspend its action on the cases before it pending the final outcome of the administrative proceedings. Accordingly, we have reiterate that the court a quo did not err in denying petitioners’ motion to dismiss the complaint in Civil Case No. 9884 although it did commit error in issuing its order restraining further proceedings on the administrative investigation being conducted by DECS.


D E C I S I O N


VITUG, J.:


The instant petition seeks to nullify the Resolution, dated 12 January 1993, of the Office of the President ("OP"), denying petitioner’s partial motion for reconsideration of OP Resolution, dated 30 July 1990, which exonerated the petitioner of all charges in Ministry of Agriculture and Food (MAF) Administrative Case No. 278 and ordered his reinstatement to his former position. Invoking the "no work, no pay" rule, the Office of the President did not make any award for back salaries.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

The petitioner, then Fisheries Regional Director under the then Ministry of Agriculture and Food, was dismissed from the service on 30 April 1986 pursuant to a decision of the Minister of Agriculture in MAF Administrative Case No. 278 which found him guilty of the offense of grave misconduct, oppression and violation of existing Civil Service laws.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

From the order of the MAF, the petitioner appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC). The CSC, however, referred the case to the Office of the President since the petitioner was a Presidential appointee and a Career Executive Officer (CESO) with Rank IV.

On 30 July 1990, the Office of the President issued a Resolution, signed by then Executive Secretary Catalino Macaraeg, Jr., stating, in its dispositive portion, that —

"IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Decision and Order of the Minister of Agriculture and Food respectively dated April 30, 1986 and August 29, 1986, are hereby SET ASIDE. Appellant Francisco A. Tan, Jr., is hereby EXONERATED of all the charges against him. Accordingly, the Department of Agriculture to which department the BFAR had been transferred, is hereby directed to reinstate Tan to his former or any equivalent position. Tan, however, is not entitled to payment of back salaries pursuant to the principle of no work, no pay." (p. 39, Rollo.)

The petitioner filed a partial motion for reconsideration, praying that he should likewise be granted back salaries.

In a Resolution, dated 12 January 1993, the Office of the President, through respondent Assistant Executive Secretary Renato C. Corona, denied petitioner’s partial motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. (p. 47, Rollo.)

Hence, this petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Office of the President and Renato C. Corona in denying the petitioner’s claim for back salaries. The petitioner also named as respondents the Department of Agriculture, the Commission on Audit and Andres R. Menguito (the complainant in the administrative case).chanrobles law library

The petition has merit.

In rejecting petitioner’s claim, the Office of the President has relied on the fact that Section 42 of Presidential Decree No. 807 (Civil Service Law), unlike its counterpart in the old Civil Service Law, does not expressly provide for any payment of back salaries to government officials or employees who are found to have been illegally dismissed and ordered to be thereby reinstated to their former positions.

Section 42 of P.D. No. 807, however, is really not in point. The provision refers to preventive suspensions during the pendency of administrative investigations, and it does not cover dismissed civil servants who are ultimately exonerated and ordered reinstated to their former or equivalent positions. The rule in the latter instance, just as we have said starting with the case of Cristobal v. Melchor (101 SCRA 857), is that when "a government official or employee in the classified civil service had been illegally dismissed, and his reinstatement had later been ordered, for all legal purposes he is considered as not having left his office, so that he is entitled to all the rights and privileges that accrue to him by virtue of the office that he held." Such award of backwages, however, has since been limited to a maximum period of five (5) years (San Luis v. CA, 174 SCRA 258).chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

In this instance, the Solicitor General himself has recommended the grant of the petition for similar reasons. In addition, he has made the following manifestation:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Public respondents Department of Agriculture and Commission on Audit have expressed their concurrence to the recommendation of the Office of the Solicitor General. The Office of the President has likewise expressed no objection to the Solicitor General’s recommendation."cralaw virtua1aw library

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED as prayed for; however, the payment of back salaries shall be limited to a maximum of five (5) years. No costs.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason and Puno, JJ., concur.

Kapunan, J., took no part.

Nocon, J., is on leave.

Top of Page