G.R. No. 187858 ; August 9, 2011
THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Petitioner, vs. RICHARD G. CRUZ, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Richard G. Cruz, a Storekeeper A at the City of Malolos Water District (CMWD), was charged with Grave Misconduct and Dishonesty. The misconduct charge was based on an alleged utterance against the CMWD General Manager and Board of Directors. The dishonesty charge stemmed from his claim for overtime pay despite an alleged failure to log in and out on a computerized daily time record for three days. The CMWD General Manager preventively suspended Cruz and subsequently dismissed him from the service. Cruz appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC). In CSC Resolution No. 080305, the CSC absolved Cruz of both charges, finding no factual basis for Grave Misconduct and Dishonesty. However, the CSC found him liable for the lesser offense of Violation of Reasonable Office Rules for his failure to log in and out, imposing the penalty of reprimand. The CSC ordered his reinstatement but did not award back salaries. Cruz filed a motion for reconsideration claiming entitlement to back salaries, which the CSC denied. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the CSC, applying the ruling in Bangalisan v. CA, and awarded Cruz back salaries from his dismissal up to actual reinstatement. The CA reasoned that CSC Resolution No. 080305 totally exonerated him from the charges laid against him, and the finding for a different offense (violation of office rules) warranted full restoration of his rights, including back salaries. The CSC filed the present petition.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent Richard G. Cruz is entitled to back salaries after the CSC ordered his reinstatement, given that the CSC found him guilty only of Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition, affirming the CA’s award of back salaries to respondent Cruz. The Court held that Cruz was entitled to back salaries for the period of his suspension pending appeal because he was exonerated of the charges for which he was dismissed (Grave Misconduct and Dishonesty). The Court applied the doctrine established in Bangalisan v. CA, which states that a government employee who is dismissed but later exonerated of the charges is entitled to back salaries, provided the exoneration is based on a finding that the employee is not guilty of the offense charged. The Court distinguished the present case from Jacinto v. CA and De la Cruz v. CA, where back salaries were denied because the employees were found guilty of lesser offenses that were related to or necessarily included in the original charges. Here, the offense for which Cruz was ultimately penalized (Violation of Reasonable Office Rules for failure to log in/out) was entirely different and based on facts distinct from the charge of Dishonesty (which was based on claiming overtime pay without rendering work). Since the factual bases were different, the charge of Dishonesty was not merely downgraded; Cruz was exonerated from that specific charge. Therefore, his exoneration from the dismissal-worthy charges entitled him to back salaries upon reinstatement. The legal basis for the award is Section 47(4), Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987, in relation to the constitutional security of tenure, which aims to make an exonerated employee whole by restoring compensation lost during an unjustified dismissal.