GR 217450; (November, 2020) (Digest)
G.R. No. 217450 , November 25, 2020
ADELINA A. ROMERO, PETITIONER, VS. JESSE I. CONCEPCION, MAYOR, MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT OF MARIVELES, PROVINCE OF BATAAN, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Petitioner Adelina A. Romero, Municipal Accountant of Mariveles, Bataan, was initially dismissed by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) Regional Office in 2003 for Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) modified the ruling in a final and executory 2010 Decision, finding her guilty only of Simple Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and meting a one-year suspension. The CSC subsequently ordered her reinstatement with back salaries. However, respondent Mayor Jesse I. Concepcion refused reinstatement, citing an Office Order from 2004 that dropped petitioner from the rolls due to her absence stemming from the enforcement of the initial dismissal order during the pendency of her appeals.
The CA, in its assailed 2014 Decision, directed petitioner’s reinstatement but denied her claim for back salaries, ruling that the reduction of her penalty did not constitute exoneration entitling her to back wages. It, however, found the dropping from the rolls unjustified, as her absence was due to the execution of the erroneous dismissal order during appeal, during which period she was considered under preventive suspension. Both parties filed motions for reconsideration, which were denied.
ISSUE
Whether petitioner is entitled to back salaries and reinstatement following the finality of the CA Decision which reduced her penalty from dismissal to a one-year suspension.
RULING
Yes, but partially. The Supreme Court granted the petition in part. It upheld the CA’s directive for immediate reinstatement, affirming that petitioner’s dropping from the rolls was invalid. Her absence was not voluntary but a consequence of the executed but later overturned dismissal order; thus, she could not be penalized for it.
On the claim for back salaries, the Court modified the CA ruling. Applying the doctrine in Bangalisan v. Court of Appeals, a public official is entitled to back salaries only if she is exonerated of the charge or if the penalty imposed is suspension. Here, the penalty was ultimately reduced to a one-year suspension. Therefore, she is entitled to back salaries, but not for the entire period of her separation. The entitlement runs only from the time the modifying judgment—the CA’s 2010 Decision—became final and executory. Back salaries for the period of the one-year suspension itself and the period during which the initial dismissal order was pending appeal are not recoverable, as these were served as lawful penalties or preventive suspension. Consequently, the Court ordered the payment of petitioner’s back salaries from the finality of the CA’s modifying judgment on April 24, 2010, until her actual reinstatement.