G.R. No. 140359 ; June 19, 2000
HERMAN CANIETE and WILFREDO ROSARIO, petitioners, vs. THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners Herman Caniete and Wilfredo Rosario were public school teachers charged by the DECS Secretary with participation in mass actions/strikes on September 20 and 21, 1990. They were preventively suspended and subsequently dismissed from service. On appeal, the Merit Systems Protection Board found them guilty only of Gross Violation of Civil Service Law and Rules, imposing a three-month suspension. The Civil Service Commission further modified the ruling, finding petitioners guilty merely of Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations—specifically, being absent without leave on those dates—and meting out only the penalty of reprimand with reinstatement but without back salaries.
Petitioners moved for reconsideration, seeking payment of back salaries for the period of their dismissal, but the CSC denied their claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed the CSC’s denial, citing jurisprudence that back salaries are payable only if an employee is exonerated and the suspension or dismissal is declared illegal. The CA held that since petitioners were found guilty of an offense, they were not entitled to back wages.

ISSUE

Whether petitioners, who were dismissed for alleged strike participation but later found guilty only of absence without leave and penalized with reprimand, are entitled to back salaries upon reinstatement.

RULING

Yes, petitioners are entitled to back salaries. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, applying the doctrine established in Gloria vs. Court of Appeals. The legal logic is that entitlement to back salaries hinges on exoneration from the charges that formed the basis for the dismissal or preventive suspension. Here, petitioners were initially dismissed for the grave charge of participating in mass actions/strikes. However, the CSC ultimately exonerated them of that specific charge, finding them liable only for the lesser administrative offense of failure to file a leave of absence, warranting only a reprimand.
Consequently, the dismissal based on the original, more serious charge was unjustified. Under Section 47 of the Administrative Code, if a penalty of removal is reversed on appeal, the employee is considered under preventive suspension during the appeal and is entitled to reinstatement. Payment of back salaries for the period of illegal dismissal is proper as it compensates for the wrongful deprivation of the right to work. To deny back wages after exoneration from the dismissive charge would be to punish them for an offense of which they were cleared. The Court thus ordered the DECS to pay petitioners their salaries from the time of dismissal until actual reinstatement, not exceeding five years.