September 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 159099 : September 14, 2011]
WILLIE FERNANDO S. MAALIW, PETITIONER, v. COURT OF APPEALS AND LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.
"G.R. No. 159099 - WILLIE FERNANDO S. MAALIW, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS and LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
Petitioner Willie Fernando S. Maaliw appeals the January 20, 2003 decision,[1] whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed Resolution No. 01-1085 dated June 27, 2001[2] and Resolution No. 02-0034 dated January 7, 2002,[3] of the Civil Service Commission (CSC).
The factual antecedents as narrated by the CA are as follows:
On March 4, 1998, petitioner Willie Fernando S. Maaliw was charged by the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Land Bank of the Philippines (Landbank) for misconduct and gross discourtesy in the course of official duty.
Consequently, the thirteenth month pay and the cash gift, midyear bonus, centennial celebration allowance and loan privileges under the Landbank Provident Fund for 1998 were withheld because of the pending administrative case. The withholding of benefits was based on the condition uniformly set forth in the Landbank's Executive Orders that employees with pending administrative case are not entitled to the subject benefits unless later on exonerated.
On September 1, 1998, petitioner appealed to the Civil Service Commission the withholding of the aforementioned benefits.
On July 20, 1999, CSC Resolution No. 99-1609 was issued finding petitioner entitled to his year-end bonus, consisting of his 13th month pay and cash gift despite the pendency of an administrative case. However, he was not entitled to the other benefits which the Landbank grants to its employees.
On the same date, the Land bank Hearing Officer found petitioner guilty of the charges and recommended the penalty of one month suspension.
Upon automatic review, the Office of the General Counsel of Landbank found the petitioner guilty of simple misconduct and recommended the penalty of suspension for three months and one day. The Landbank President approved the findings of the General Counsel on October 6, 1999 and the same was immediately executed.
On October 21, 1999, petitioner received the resolution of the Hearing Officer and the memorandum of the General Counsel.
On October 28, 1999, petitioner seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration. However, respondent Landbank decreed the resolution of the Hearing Officer as final and immediately executory. Petitioner was made to serve the penalty of suspension from October 22, 1999 to January 23, 2000.[4]
In all, the petitioner filed in the CSC three petitions for the payment of fringe benefits and salary adjustments, viz:
- The petition dated February 28, 2000 to compel Land Bank to pay his back salaries and fringe benefits covering the period from October 22, 1999 to January 23, 2000 (the period of his suspension for three months and one day);
- The urgent petition dated June 2, 2000 to compel the Land Bank "to pay the fringe benefits and salary adjustments covering the period March 4, 1998 to October 21, 1999" (the time he was formally charged until his receipt of the decision suspending him from the service); and
- The petition dated August 23, 2000 praying for the payment of benefits and salary adjustments covering the period January 24, 2000 (after service of his suspension) onwards.[5]
On June 27, 2001, the CSC, through Resolution No. 01-1085, denied the petitions dated February 28, 2000 and June 2, 2000. As regards the petition dated August 23, 2000, the petitioner was paid by Land Bank all his salaries and fringe benefits from January 24, 2000 onwards. Therein, the CSC distinguished between the benefits given by the Land Bank exclusively to its employees and the benefits granted to government employees in general, clarifying that Land Bank could validly set conditions for the grant of the benefits of the former kind, but could not impose restrictions not stated in the DBM Circular for granting the benefits given to all government employees in general.[6]
It appears that the benefits the petitioner claimed were given exclusively to Land Bank employees. Thus, Land Bank might prescribe the condition that employees with pending administrative cases were not entitled to the benefits unless they were later on exonerated. Moreover, as a consequence of his suspension, he could not draw his salary and other benefits during the period of his suspension, but after he had served his suspension, that is, from January 24, 2000 onwards, he was entitled to his salary and other benefits.
The petitioner sought reconsideration of Resolution No. 01-1085 respecting the denial of his petitions dated February 28, 2000 and June 2, 2000. However, the CSC denied his motion for reconsideration through Resolution No. 02-0034 dated January 7, 2002.
Aggrieved, the petitioner appealed to the CA, stating the following issues for his recourse, to wit:
THE CSC ARRIVED AT ILLOGICAL AND INCONSISTENT FINDINGS OF FACTS AND MADE UNSUPPORTED CONCLUSION THEREFROM IN RULING THAT PETITIONER IS NOT ENTITLED TO PAYMENT OF BACK SALARIES AND FRINGE BENEFITS COVERING THE PERIOD 22 OCTOBER 1999 TO 23 JANUARY 2000 WHEN RESPONDENT LBP PREVENTED HIM FROM REPORTING TO WORK DESPITE THE TIMELY MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION FROM THE RESOLUTION OF THE LBP HEARING OFFICER.
THE FORFEITURE OF PETITIONER'S FRINGE BENEFITS AND SALARY ADJUSTMENTS DURING THE PERIOD MARCH 8, 1998 TO OCTOBER 22, 1999 FINDS NO SANCTION IN LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE.
On January 20, 2003, the CA upheld both resolutions of the CSC, and ruled that the petitioner was definitely not entitled to his fringe benefits and back salaries during the pendency of his administrative case as well as during the period of his suspension, specifically from March 4, 1998 until January 23, 2000. The CA noted that it had dismissed .his appeal in C.A.-G.R. SP No. 60882 (promulgated on July 17, 2003) from the resolution of the CSC affirming the decision of Land Bank finding him guilty of simple misconduct.[7] Citing the pronouncement in Bangalisan v. Court of Appeals (276 SCRA 619), to the effect that the payment of salaries corresponding to the period when an employee is not allowed to work may be decreed if he is found innocent of the charges that caused the suspension, and when the suspension is unjustified, and that the denial of salary to an employee during the period of his suspension, if he should later be found guilty, is proper because he had given ground for his suspension, and does not impair his constitutional rights because the Constitution itself allows suspension for cause as provided by law and the law provides that an employee may be suspended pending an investigation or by way of penalty, the CA held that the CSC was correct in holding in its Resolution No. 02-0034 dated January 7, 2002 that;[8]
On the other hand, the Commission cannot consider the filing of a timely motion for reconsideration as a valid ground for granting the benefits claimed. Maaliw, in his appeal from the previous decision of the LBP finding him guilty of Simple Misconduct never raised the issue that he filed a timely motion for reconsideration of the said decision. It may be recalled that the Commission dismissed his appeal in CSC Resolution No. 00-1290 dated June 3, 2000. Moreover, if the contention of Maaliw is true, why did he immediately appeal the decision to this Commission, instead of waiting for the resolution of his alleged motion for reconsideration? Maaliw's failure to allege in his appeal that he filed a motion for reconsideration from the decision of the LBP in the disciplinary case and was prevented from reporting during the pendency of the MR, could not now be considered. xxx
After the CA denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration on July 10, 2003,[9] he appeals, reiterating the submissions he had earlier interposed.
Ruling
The petition for review lacks merit.
The ruling in CA G.R. SP No. 60882 promulgated on July 17, 2002 affirming the finding of misconduct and suspension for three months and one day mooted his claims for monetary benefits corresponding to the period of the pendency of the administrative charge against him and during the service of his penalty of suspension. We concur with the CA that despite the prematurity of the execution of the penalty of suspension, he still was not entitled to his salaries corresponding to the period of his suspension because he had not been found innocent of the charges against him.
The CSC and CA sufficiently and exhaustively discussed and explained why the petitioner could not be entitled to his monetary claims. Indeed, as both CSC and CA held, Land Bank had the right to set the conditions under which the entitlement of the fringe benefits it granted out of its liberality and benevolence to its employees. Under the circumstances, Land Bank might exclude from receiving such fringe benefits the employees with pending administrative charges unless exonerated. His being found guilty of misconduct and properly sanctioned forfeited his right to the fringe benefits for the period in question.
Relevantly, Section 56 of Rule IV of CSC Resolution No. 99-1936 (Uniform Rules in Administrative Cases in Civil Service) provides:
Section 56. Duration and Effect of Administrative Penalties - The following rules shall govern in the imposition of administrative penalties;
xxx
d. The penalty of suspension shall result in the temporary cessation of work for a period not exceeding one (1) year.
Suspension of one day or more shall be considered a gap in the continuity of service. During the period of suspension, respondent shall not be entitled to all money benefits including leave credits. [emphasis supplied]
The petitioner was not denied what was rightly due to him. We note that from January 24, 2000 onwards, after he had fully served out his suspension, the CSC directed Land Bank to restore his name in its roll of employees who were entitled to receive whatever monetary benefit Land Bank granted.cralaw
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review, and AFFIRMS the decision promulgated by the Court of Appeals on January 20, 2003. No pronouncement on costs of suit.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 28-34; penned by Associate Justice Eliezer R. De Los Santos (retired and deceased), with Associate Justice Oswaldo D. Agcaoili (retired) and Associate Justice Regalado E. Maambong (retired and deceased) concurring.[2] CA rollo, pp. 26-41.
[3] Id., pp. 43-49.
[4] Rollo, pp. 29-30.
[5] Id., pp. 29-30.
[6] CA rollo, p. 37.
[7] Rollo, pp. 28-34.
[8] Id.
[9] Id., p. 36.
