G.R. No. 106692 September 1, 1994
MILA MANALO, petitioner, vs. RICARDO GLORIA, in his capacity as the Acting Secretary of Science and Technology, and PATRICIA STO. TOMAS, in her capacity as the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Mila Manalo was a Planning Assistant at the Philippine Nuclear Research Institute (PNRI). Pursuant to Executive Order No. 128 reorganizing the Department of Science and Technology (DOST), PNRI adopted a new staffing pattern that abolished her position. Instead of contesting the abolition, Manalo requested appointment to a comparable position. Consequently, on May 15, 1989, she was appointed and voluntarily accepted the position of Clerk II, a lower-ranked position with a reduced salary, without any reservation.
Subsequently, in the case of Mendoza vs. Quisumbing (G.R. No. 78053, June 4, 1990) and its companion case Arizabal vs. Leviste (G.R. No. 81495), the Supreme Court ordered the reinstatement of affected employees to positions comparable to their former ones. Manalo, who was not a party to those cases, then sought payment of back wages from her separation date until her appointment as Clerk II, and salary differentials equivalent to her former Planning Assistant salary. Both the DOST and the Civil Service Commission (CSC), in Resolution No. 91-1036, denied her requests, citing her non-party status and her voluntary acceptance of the lower position.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for certiorari and mandamus filed by Manalo should be granted, compelling the DOST to pay her back wages and salary differentials equivalent to her former position.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition. Procedurally, the petition was filed out of time. Manalo received the assailed CSC Resolution on September 5, 1991. Under Section 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution, a decision of a constitutional commission must be appealed via certiorari to the Supreme Court within thirty days from receipt. Manalo filed her petition nearly a year later on September 3, 1992, thus violating the mandatory reglementary period, which is a sufficient ground for dismissal.
On substantive merits, the petition likewise fails. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the CSC’s denial. Manalo was not a party to the Arizabal case, and the ruling therein did not automatically extend to her. Crucially, her situation was distinct because she did not challenge the reorganization’s legality. She proactively requested a new appointment and voluntarily accepted the position of Clerk II without protest. By doing so, she effectively acquiesced to the new terms of her employment, including the lower rank and salary. Her subsequent claim for back wages and salary equalization, after having accepted the benefits of the new position, is untenable. The Court upheld the CSC’s finding that her acceptance was an election of remedy that barred her later claims.