G.R. No. L-44622 August 26, 1977
MARCELA M. BALDOZ, petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (NOW DEPARTMENT OF TRADE) and CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Marcela M. Baldoz, a former Commercial Attaché in Berne, Switzerland, was formally charged with insubordination and violation of office regulations in 1971 for proceeding on home leave without the required approval of the Secretary of the Department of Commerce and Industry. After investigation, she was found guilty and ordered dismissed. The Civil Service Commission, upon review, modified the penalty, ultimately requiring her to seek a transfer to another office within ninety days or be considered resigned, with a possibility of reinstatement at the appointing authority’s discretion.
Subsequently, on July 10, 1973, Baldoz appealed to the Office of the President. The Office, through Presidential Assistant Ronaldo B. Zamora, responded on November 5, 1973, by granting her executive clemency under Section 37 of Republic Act No. 2260, as amended. This clemency allowed her reinstatement to her former position at the discretion of the appointing authority and subject to civil service rules. However, the then Secretary of Trade declined reinstatement, citing the abolition of her position and her lack of appropriate civil service eligibility. Despite her persistent pleas and subsequent motions for review, the Office of the President consistently upheld the discretionary nature of the reinstatement following the grant of clemency.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the grant of executive clemency to petitioner entitled her to automatic reinstatement to her former position.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, ruling that the grant of executive clemency did not confer a right to automatic reinstatement. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of executive clemency under the civil service law and the discretion inherent in the appointing power. The Court emphasized that Section 37 of Republic Act No. 2260, as amended, which Baldoz invoked, provides for the commutation or removal of administrative penalties by the President. However, by filing a petition for such clemency, the petitioner is deemed to have admitted guilt. The clemency granted merely removed the penalty of separation but did not restore her to her former position as a matter of right.
The Court further elucidated that reinstatement remains a discretionary act of the appointing authority, contingent upon the existence of a vacant position and the petitioner’s compliance with civil service eligibility requirements. Since the position was abolished and Baldoz lacked the requisite eligibility, the appointing authority validly exercised discretion in denying reinstatement. The Office of the President’s decision, which treated her July 10, 1973, letter as a petition for clemency rather than an ordinary appeal, was deemed a proper interpretation of her request, rendering moot any other procedural issues she raised. Consequently, no constitutional or statutory right to reinstatement was violated.