G.R. No. 208976 . February 22, 2016.
THE HONORABLE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, PETITIONER, VS. LEOVIGILDO DELOS REYES, JR., RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Respondent Leovigildo Delos Reyes, Jr., Division Chief of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) Marketing and On-line Division, was administratively charged for grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty. An audit revealed unremitted lotto collections amounting to P387,879.00 from his division, attributed to a deliberate delay in submitting sales reports and using partial remittances to cover prior collections. The PCSO Legal Department found that as Division Chief, Delos Reyes was accountable for the lotto proceeds and reports turned over by his subordinates. The Office of the Ombudsman found him guilty and ordered his dismissal from service with all accessory penalties.
Delos Reyes filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which granted his petition. The appellate court reversed the Ombudsman’s decision, ordered his reinstatement, and awarded him full backwages and benefits. The Supreme Court, upon the Ombudsman’s petition, reversed the Court of Appeals in a Resolution dated October 13, 2014, reinstated the Ombudsman’s dismissal order, and dismissed Delos Reyes from service. Delos Reyes filed a motion for reconsideration, and PCSO filed a separate motion for clarification regarding the implementation of the Supreme Court’s reinstated dismissal order.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Supreme Court’s reinstatement of the Ombudsman’s dismissal order carries the accessory penalty of disqualification from re-employment, thereby barring any award of back salaries for a period following a prior temporary reinstatement.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied Delos Reyes’s motion for reconsideration and clarified the implementation of its reinstated dismissal order. The Court held that the penalty of dismissal from service, as reinstated from the Ombudsman’s original decision, inherently includes the accessory penalties provided by law, specifically disqualification for re-employment in the government service. Consequently, any period where a dismissed employee is subsequently reinstated pursuant to a lower court’s order (like the Court of Appeals’ order here) is considered a mere temporary reinstatement.
The legal logic is that a final administrative penalty, once upheld by the Supreme Court, relates back to its original imposition. Therefore, an employee is not entitled to back salaries for any period of service rendered under a temporary reinstatement order that is later overturned. The award of back salaries is premised on a finding of illegal dismissal; here, the dismissal was ultimately adjudged as legal and valid. The Court cited Civil Service Commission v. Cruz, which established that payment of back wages during a period of preventive suspension is only proper if the employee is exonerated. Since Delos Reyes was found guilty, the accessory penalty of disqualification for re-employment applies, and no back salaries are due for the period following the Ombudsman’s final and executory decision. The PCSO was directed to implement the dismissal order immediately.