GR L 21918; (January, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-21918 January 24, 1967
MARTIN B. AUSTRIA, petitioner, vs. THE AUDITOR GENERAL, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Martin B. Austria, a senior teacher eligible with over twenty years of continuous service, was the principal of Jackson High School (Olongapo High School) in Olongapo, Zambales. On June 15, 1954, he entered into a 12-month contract with the U.S. Naval Reservation. Following an administrative complaint filed by four lady teachers, the Acting Director of Public Schools found the evidence substantiated Austria’s guilt and deemed him unfit to remain as principal. On July 13, 1955, the U.S. Naval Station Commanding Officer suspended Austria “without prejudice.” The Commissioner of Civil Service later found Austria guilty of improper conduct, abuse of authority, and vindictiveness, ordering his demotion to classroom teacher, transfer to another station, reprimand, and warning. This decision was affirmed by the Civil Service Board of Appeals on March 8, 1957. On October 7, 1959, Austria was appointed to the lower position of classroom teacher in Davao. He filed a claim for payment of his salary as principal from the date of his suspension (July 15, 1955) until his appointment to the lower position (October 7, 1959). The Auditor General denied this claim.
ISSUE
Is the petitioner entitled to back salaries pursuant to Section 260 of the Revised Administrative Code, considering his subsequent appointment to a lower position?
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the Auditor General denying the claim. The Court held that the “reinstatement” referred to in Section 260 of the Revised Administrative Code means reinstatement to the same position from which the employee was suspended, not merely reinstatement to government service. Austria’s appointment to a lower position (classroom teacher) was a penalty imposed due to his guilt in the administrative case, not an exoneration. Therefore, he was not entitled to back salaries for the period of suspension. The Court found his suspension was for cause, and the delay in implementing the demotion did not obligate the government to pay his salary for the intervening period. The resolution of the secondary issue regarding which government (Philippine or United States) would be liable was deemed moot.