G.R. No. 228236 , January 27, 2021
House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, Petitioner, vs. Daisy B. Panga-Vega, Respondent.

FACTS

On February 2, 2011, respondent Daisy B. Panga-Vega, then Secretary of the HRET, requested a special leave benefit under Republic Act No. 9710 (Magna Carta of Women) for up to two months to undergo a hysterectomy. The HRET approved her request starting February 7, 2011. She underwent surgery on February 7, 2011. On March 7, 2011, after one month, she informed the HRET she was reassuming her duties, presenting a medical certificate dated March 5, 2011, stating “no contraindication to resume light to moderate activities.” On March 9, 2011, she presented another medical certificate stating she was “fit to work.” The HRET, on March 10, 2011, directed her to consume her full two-month leave, citing her need for prolonged rest and a pending investigation against her for alleged tampering of minutes. Her motion for reconsideration was denied on March 24, 2011. Panga-Vega appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC). The CSC granted her appeal on October 9, 2012, ruling she only needed to present a medical certificate of fitness and was entitled to both the commuted value of the unexpired leave and her salary for actual work rendered, applying rules on maternity leave suppletorily. The CSC denied the HRET’s motion for reconsideration on February 12, 2013. The HRET filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed it on April 29, 2016, and denied reconsideration on November 8, 2016. The HRET then filed this petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

1. Whether the HRET had the legal capacity to initiate the petition without the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).
2. Whether the rules on maternity leave under the Omnibus Rules can be applied suppletorily to the special leave benefit under R.A. No. 9710 .
3. Whether Panga-Vega sufficiently complied with the conditions to return to work before the expiration of her approved special leave.

RULING

1. On the HRET’s Legal Capacity: The Supreme Court ruled that the HRET lacked the legal capacity to initiate the petition. As a government instrumentality, its statutory counsel is the OSG, which must represent it in litigation unless there is an express authorization from the OSG deputizing its legal officers or the OSG takes a contrary position. The records showed no such authorization or allegation of a contrary position from the OSG. The HRET’s justification of seeking a speedy resolution was insufficient, and no subsequent ratification by the OSG was filed. Thus, the petition was defective.
2. On the Suppletory Application of Maternity Leave Rules: The Court, addressing the merits, ruled that the rules on maternity leave can be applied suppletorily to the special leave benefit under R.A. No. 9710 . R.A. No. 9710 is a social legislation enacted to fulfill the state’s duty under the Constitution and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) to protect and empower women. Its provisions must be liberally construed in favor of women. The special leave benefit, like maternity leave, aims to protect women’s health and welfare, providing financial aid and recuperation time. Applying maternity leave rules—which allow an employee to receive both the commuted value of unexpired leave and salary for actual work upon early return—is consistent with the law’s spirit of empowering women and supporting their holistic recuperation. Nothing in R.A. No. 9710 or the CSC Guidelines prohibits this interpretation.
3. On Compliance with Conditions for Early Return: The Court found that Panga-Vega complied with the conditions for returning to work. Under the CSC Guidelines, a total hysterectomy requires a recuperation period of three weeks to two months. She returned after four weeks, within the minimum period. The Guidelines also require a medical certificate from the attending surgeon attesting fitness to work. While her first certificate was ambiguous, her second certificate dated March 9, 2011, from her attending obstetrician/gynecologist, clearly stated she was “fit to work,” satisfying the requirement. Therefore, her return to work was proper.
Dispositive Portion: The petition was denied. The Court upheld the CA and CSC decisions, setting aside the HRET resolutions directing Panga-Vega to consume her full leave. She was entitled to back salaries and benefits from March 7, 2011, to April 7, 2011.