G.R. No. 197634. November 28, 2016.
JULIUS B. CAMPOL, PETITIONER, VS. MAYOR RONALD S. BALAO-AS AND VICE-MAYOR DOMINADOR I. SIANEN, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Julius B. Campol was the permanent Secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan of Boliney, Abra. Shortly after respondents Mayor Ronald Balao-as and Vice-Mayor Dominador Sianen assumed office in July 2004, the SB passed a resolution terminating Campol for alleged absences without approved leave from August 1 to September 30, 2004. Despite contrary opinions from the Civil Service Commission (CSC) field office, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, and the DILG, Vice-Mayor Sianen issued a memorandum dropping Campol from the rolls. The CSC initially ruled for Campol but later reversed itself, upholding his dismissal. On appeal, the Court of Appeals found the dismissal illegal, agreeing Campol was denied due process and the alleged absences were unsubstantiated.
The CA, however, refused to order Campol’s reinstatement, reasoning it was no longer viable because he had been gainfully employed with the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) since October 2005. It also limited his backwages to the period from his dismissal until October 2005. Campol filed this petition, admitting his PAO employment but explaining he was forced to accept the lower-paying job (Salary Grade 4 versus his original SG 24) after his wife was murdered in 2005, to support his two daughters during the pendency of his case.

ISSUE

Whether an illegally dismissed civil servant is entitled to reinstatement and full backwages despite having obtained subsequent employment during the pendency of his case.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, ordering Campol’s reinstatement and payment of full backwages from his illegal dismissal until actual reinstatement. The constitutional guarantee of security of tenure mandates that an illegally dismissed employee be restored to their former position without loss of seniority rights. The Court clarified that reinstatement is a relief separate from the award of backwages; the former restores the employment, while the latter compensates for lost income.
The legal logic is clear: subsequent employment does not negate the right to reinstatement. Accepting another job is a necessity borne from economic compulsion due to the illegal dismissal itself. To rule otherwise would punish the employee for mitigating damages and reward the erring employer. Jurisprudence consistently holds that the right to reinstatement exists even if the employee has found other work, as the new employment is considered involuntary. The award of backwages must also be full and not truncated, covering the entire period from unlawful separation until reinstatement, to make the employee whole. The CA erred in treating subsequent employment as a waiver of the right to reinstatement and in limiting backwages.