G.R. No. L-27562 May 29, 1970
ROMULO A. YARCIA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. CITY OF BAGUIO, Represented by: The City Treasurer, The City Auditor, The City Council and The City Mayor, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Romulo A. Yarcia, a market collector for Baguio City, was charged with dishonesty for collecting an extra P2.00 from two meat vendors, making it appear on official receipts as payable to the government when the money was for his personal profit, though without causing pecuniary loss to the government. The City Treasurer found him guilty and, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Finance, the Commissioner of Civil Service ordered his dismissal from the service, with immediate execution in the interest of the public service. Consequently, Yarcia ceased working on March 15, 1963. On appeal, the Civil Service Board of Appeals upheld his guilt but modified the penalty. Considering the City Treasurer’s recommendation for a penalty short of dismissal and the absence of government pecuniary loss, the Board imposed a fine equivalent to six months’ pay as commensurate with the offense. Yarcia was reinstated on February 14, 1966. He then demanded backpay for the period of his separation (March 15, 1963, to February 14, 1966), minus the fine, amounting to approximately P5,400.00. Upon refusal by the city, he filed an action for backpay, plus moral and exemplary damages and costs. The trial court ruled against Yarcia, holding that an employee suspended for cause is not entitled to backpay for services not rendered, as it would demoralize the public service and give a premium to dishonesty.

ISSUE

Whether the appellant, Romulo A. Yarcia, is entitled to receive back salaries for the period he was out of the service due to the immediately executed dismissal order, which was later modified by the Civil Service Board of Appeals to a penalty of a fine equivalent to six months’ pay.

RULING

The dissenting opinion of Justice Barredo argues that the majority decision is not in accordance with law and is unjust. He contends that the penalty determined by the Civil Service Board of Appeals was explicitly and solely a fine equivalent to six months’ pay, with no indication that the period of separation was considered part of the penalty. The Board’s decision did not connote that the nearly three-year separation plus the fine was sufficient punishment. Therefore, sanctioning the execution of the penalty in a manner that effectively makes Yarcia lose two years and nine months’ pay is unwarranted and baseless in law and justice. The principle of “no-work-no-pay” applied in cases of preventive suspension or dismissals where the deciding authority deemed the separation period as sufficient punishment is inapplicable here, as the Board’s decision contained no such determination. Justice Barredo analogizes the situation to Rule 39, Section 5 of the Rules of Court, which allows for restitution when a judgment executed pending appeal is reversed or modified, arguing that equity and justice warrant payment of back salaries for the period of authorized dismissal subsequently deprived of legal basis, minus the imposed fine. He concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and Yarcia paid his back salaries for the period of separation, minus the fine.