G.R. No. 164929 ; April 10, 2006
ERNELIZA Z. MAMARIL, Petitioner, vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Erneliza Mamaril was appointed to a coterminous position as Department Legislative Liaison Specialist (DLLS) at the DOTC. The Civil Service Commission (CSC), upon the DOTC’s request, later converted two DLLS positions from coterminous to permanent via Resolution No. 01-0233. Initially, the CSC advised that incumbents had no automatic right to the now-permanent posts. However, in a subsequent Resolution (No. 01-0502), the CSC ruled that incumbents were ipso facto appointed if qualified. This was later modified by CSC Resolution No. 01-1409, which declared the positions vacant, leading to Mamaril’s termination. The CSC eventually reinstated her via Resolution No. 02-1504 but denied her claim for back salaries. Mamaril filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals (CA) assailing the denial of backwages.
The CA dismissed Mamaril’s petition outright for failure to comply with the verification and certification against forum shopping requirements under Rule 43. Although Mamaril filed a motion for reconsideration attaching a verified petition with the proper certification, the CA denied it, ruling that subsequent compliance did not cure the initial infirmity.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for non-compliance with procedural rules and in not granting the petitioner’s claim for back salaries.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the CA. On procedural grounds, the Court held that while verification and certification against forum shopping are mandatory, their strict application may be relaxed to serve substantial justice. The CA’s dismissal was too rigid. Mamaril’s subsequent submission of a verified petition with the certification constituted substantial compliance, as the defect was not incurable, and there was no showing of intent to deceive. The rules of procedure should not be applied to override substantial justice.
On the substantive issue of back salaries, the Court ruled that Mamaril is entitled to back wages from her illegal termination until reinstatement. The CSC’s final ruling declared her separation illegal by ordering her reinstatement. Following settled jurisprudence, an employee illegally dismissed is entitled to back salaries as a necessary consequence, representing compensation for the period she was unlawfully prevented from working. The grant of reinstatement necessarily carries with it the payment of back wages, absent any finding of bad faith on her part. The DOTC’s act of terminating her based on an erroneous CSC resolution constituted an illegal removal.