G.R. No. 188681 and G.R. No. 201130, March 8, 2017
FRANCISCO T. BACULI, Petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, Respondent; and THE SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, et al., Petitioners, vs. FRANCISCO T. BACULI, Respondent.

FACTS

Francisco T. Baculi, a presidential appointee as Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer II, was preventively suspended for 90 days in September 1992 pending an administrative investigation for alleged irregularities. The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Secretary later dismissed him. The Court of Appeals initially nullified this dismissal, ruling that the DAR Secretary lacked jurisdiction over presidential appointees, but allowed the forwarding of the case to the Office of the President (OP). Baculi was not reinstated. The OP subsequently dismissed him in 2004.
In a separate mandamus action, Baculi sought payment of his back salaries and benefits for the period from the lapse of his 90-day preventive suspension in December 1992 until his eventual valid dismissal by the OP in 2004. The Regional Trial Court granted his petition, but the Court of Appeals reversed this, prompting these consolidated appeals.

ISSUE

Whether a public officer who was under indefinite preventive suspension and later validly dismissed is entitled to back salaries and benefits for the period between the lapse of the allowable preventive suspension and the effectivity of the valid dismissal order.

RULING

Yes, Baculi is entitled to back salaries. The Supreme Court granted the petition in G.R. No. 201130, reversing the CA and reinstating the RTC’s decision for payment of back salaries. The Court denied the petition in G.R. No. 188681, affirming the OP’s dismissal order as valid.
The legal logic is anchored on the principle that preventive suspension cannot be indefinite. For non-presidential appointees, the maximum period is 90 days; beyond this, automatic reinstatement is mandated unless the delay is attributable to the respondent. For presidential appointees, while no fixed maximum period exists, the suspension must only be for a reasonable time. Here, Baculi’s preventive suspension effectively became indefinite from December 1992 onward, as he was never reinstated despite the nullity of the initial dismissal order. The subsequent valid dismissal by the OP in 2004 did not retroactively justify the prolonged suspension without pay.
A public employee is entitled to compensation for services not rendered only if the failure to work was not his fault. Since the prolonged suspension was due to the procedural missteps of the disciplining authority (the invalid dismissal by the DAR Secretary and the delay in the OP’s action), and not due to Baculi’s fault, he is deemed not to have forfeited his right to salaries during that interim period. His eventual dismissal is prospective, entitling him to back wages from the end of the reasonable suspension period until the new dismissal took effect.