March 2008 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > March 2008 Resolutions >
[G.R. NO. 143474 : March 04, 2008] PACIFICO F. FAELDONEA VS. THE HON. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AND MERCED FAELDONEA:
[G.R. NO. 143474 : March 04, 2008]
PACIFICO F. FAELDONEA VS. THE HON. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AND MERCED FAELDONEA
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated March 4, 2008
G.R. NO. 143474 (PACIFICO F. FAELDONEA versus THE HON. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AND MERCED FAELDONEA)
This is a motion to clarify the Decision of the Court promulgated on August 6, 2002, the dispositive portion of which reads:
In Resolution No. 980759 dated April 14, 1998, the CSC found petitioner guilty of Grave Misconduct and Dishonesty and dismissed him from the service. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied in Resolution No. 982126 dated August 14, 1998.
The Court of Appeals (CA) sustained the decision of the CSC in a Decision dated September 30, 1999, and it denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated May 18, 2000.
In the Decision promulgated on August 6, 2002, this Court modified the Decision of the CA after finding that petitioner was liable only for simple misconduct for failing to fulfill his duty to preserve the privacy of communication and correspondence, particularly the integrity of the postal system, and his duty to set a good example to his subordinates in the office. Petitioner was punished with suspension for six months.[2]
The Decision became final and executory on March 11, 2003 as stated in the Entry of Judgment.[3]
On July 12, 2007, the Court received petitioner's Motion to Clarify Decision, and the next day, July 13, 2007, the Court received petitioner's Amended Motion to Clarify Decision.
Petitioner stated that he was not allowed to work from June 8, 1998 to April 10, 2003 or a total of almost five years by virtue of the CSC's decision dismissing him from the service, which was affirmed by the CA.
Petitioner seeks to clarify whether or not he is entitled to backwages and other benefits during those almost five years when he was dismissed for grave misconduct and dishonesty, when he was later found to be merely liable for simple misconduct and penalized with only suspension for six months.
The Court holds that petitioner is not entitled to backwages and other benefits during the period of time he was disallowed to work by virtue of the CSC decision of dismissal and when this case was pending appeal before the CA and this Court.
First, the decision of the CSC is executory based on Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987, the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations and Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
Sec. 47, Chapter 6, Subtitle A, Title 1, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 provides:
The Court notes that petitioner did not seek to restrain the execution of the CSC's judgment ordering his dismissal pending appeal before the CA.
Second, Bruguda v. Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports,[5] reiterated the rule that "the payment of backwages during the period of suspension of a civil servant who is subsequently reinstated is proper if he is found innocent of the charges and the suspension is unjustified."
In this case, although the Court did not find petitioner guilty of the charge of grave misconduct and dishonesty to warrant his dismissal from the service, he was, however, held liable for the less grave offense of simple misconduct and penalized with a six-month suspension. Hence, petitioner was not exonerated from liability for the act complained of. Further, his dismissal, which is considered as preventive suspension during the pendency of his appeal, was not unjustified as it was to protect public interest considering that he was charged with gross misconduct and dishonesty and found guilty thereof by the CSC and the CA.
Nevertheless, the Court notes that its Decision dated August 6, 2002 modifying the penalty of dismissal to a six-month suspension became final and executory on March 11, 2003. Petitioner stated that he was not allowed to work from June 8, 1998 to April 10, 2003.
WHEREFORE, it is hereby clarified that petitioner Pacifico F. Faeldonea is not entitled to backwages and other benefits for the period of time that he was disallowed to work by virtue of the CSC decision of dismissal and during the pendency of his appeal. It is further clarified that petitioner is entitled to payment of his salary and other benefits starting March 11, 2003, when the Decision of this Court promulgated on August 6, 2002 became final and executory. Petitioner is deemed to have served the penalty of six months suspension during the almost five years he was considered to be on preventive suspension."
(advl21)
Endnotes:
G.R. NO. 143474 (PACIFICO F. FAELDONEA versus THE HON. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AND MERCED FAELDONEA)
This is a motion to clarify the Decision of the Court promulgated on August 6, 2002, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated September 30, 1999 in CA-G.R. SP No. 4939-0 is MODIFIED, and petitioner is declared liable for simple misconduct only and the penalty of Suspension for six (6) months is imposed upon him.On April 7, 1997, petitioner was charged before the Civil Service Commission (CSC) with grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Petitioner, as Post Master of Dumalag Post Office, Capiz, was alleged to have opened, without the consent of the addressee, Merced F. Faeldonea, a mail envelope containing a check representing the amount of the terminal leave of the addressee's late husband, Efren Faeldonea, in breach of the integrity of the postal system.
SO ORDERED.[1]
In Resolution No. 980759 dated April 14, 1998, the CSC found petitioner guilty of Grave Misconduct and Dishonesty and dismissed him from the service. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied in Resolution No. 982126 dated August 14, 1998.
The Court of Appeals (CA) sustained the decision of the CSC in a Decision dated September 30, 1999, and it denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated May 18, 2000.
In the Decision promulgated on August 6, 2002, this Court modified the Decision of the CA after finding that petitioner was liable only for simple misconduct for failing to fulfill his duty to preserve the privacy of communication and correspondence, particularly the integrity of the postal system, and his duty to set a good example to his subordinates in the office. Petitioner was punished with suspension for six months.[2]
The Decision became final and executory on March 11, 2003 as stated in the Entry of Judgment.[3]
On July 12, 2007, the Court received petitioner's Motion to Clarify Decision, and the next day, July 13, 2007, the Court received petitioner's Amended Motion to Clarify Decision.
Petitioner stated that he was not allowed to work from June 8, 1998 to April 10, 2003 or a total of almost five years by virtue of the CSC's decision dismissing him from the service, which was affirmed by the CA.
Petitioner seeks to clarify whether or not he is entitled to backwages and other benefits during those almost five years when he was dismissed for grave misconduct and dishonesty, when he was later found to be merely liable for simple misconduct and penalized with only suspension for six months.
The Court holds that petitioner is not entitled to backwages and other benefits during the period of time he was disallowed to work by virtue of the CSC decision of dismissal and when this case was pending appeal before the CA and this Court.
First, the decision of the CSC is executory based on Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987, the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations and Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
Sec. 47, Chapter 6, Subtitle A, Title 1, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 provides:
SEC. 47. Disciplinary Jurisdiction.� (1) The [Civil Service] Commission shall decide upon appeal all administrative disciplinary cases involving the imposition of a penalty or suspension for more than thirty days, or fine in an amount exceeding thirty days' salary, demotion in rank or salary or transfer, removal or dismissal from office. A complaint may be filed directly with the Commission by a private citizen against a government official or employee in which case it may hear and decide the case or it may deputize any department or agency or official or group of officials to conduct the investigation. The results of the investigation shall be submitted to the Commission with recommendation as to the penalty to be imposed or other action to be taken.The appeal of the decision of the CSC to the CA by way of a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court does "not stay the award, judgment, final order or resolution sought to be reviewed unless the Court of Appeals shall direct otherwise upon such terms as it may deem just."[4]xxx xxx xxx
(4) An appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory, and in case the penalty is suspension or removal, the respondent shall be considered as having been under preventive suspension during the pendency of the appeal in the event he wins an appeal.
The Court notes that petitioner did not seek to restrain the execution of the CSC's judgment ordering his dismissal pending appeal before the CA.
Second, Bruguda v. Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports,[5] reiterated the rule that "the payment of backwages during the period of suspension of a civil servant who is subsequently reinstated is proper if he is found innocent of the charges and the suspension is unjustified."
In this case, although the Court did not find petitioner guilty of the charge of grave misconduct and dishonesty to warrant his dismissal from the service, he was, however, held liable for the less grave offense of simple misconduct and penalized with a six-month suspension. Hence, petitioner was not exonerated from liability for the act complained of. Further, his dismissal, which is considered as preventive suspension during the pendency of his appeal, was not unjustified as it was to protect public interest considering that he was charged with gross misconduct and dishonesty and found guilty thereof by the CSC and the CA.
Nevertheless, the Court notes that its Decision dated August 6, 2002 modifying the penalty of dismissal to a six-month suspension became final and executory on March 11, 2003. Petitioner stated that he was not allowed to work from June 8, 1998 to April 10, 2003.
WHEREFORE, it is hereby clarified that petitioner Pacifico F. Faeldonea is not entitled to backwages and other benefits for the period of time that he was disallowed to work by virtue of the CSC decision of dismissal and during the pendency of his appeal. It is further clarified that petitioner is entitled to payment of his salary and other benefits starting March 11, 2003, when the Decision of this Court promulgated on August 6, 2002 became final and executory. Petitioner is deemed to have served the penalty of six months suspension during the almost five years he was considered to be on preventive suspension."
(advl21)
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
[1] Rollo, p. 253.
[2] Id. at 252-253.
[3] Id. at 324.
[4] Rules of Court, Rule 43, Sec. 12. Effect of appeal. - The appeal shall not stay the award, judgment, final order or resolution sought to be reviewed unless the Court of Appeals shall direct otherwise upon such terms as it may deem just.
[5] G.R. Nos. 142332-43, January 31, 2005, 450 SCRA 224, 231.
