G.R. No. 82272 . February 7, 1990.
PONCIANO M. LAYUG, petitioner, vs. LOURDES QUISUMBING, as Secretary of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports and TEOFILO E. GOMEZ, as Regional Director, Department of Education, Culture & Sports, Region II, Davao City and RAMON PRESTO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ponciano M. Layug, a high school teacher, was preventively suspended on August 21, 1987, based on administrative countercharges filed by his school principal, respondent Ramon Presto. Citing Section 42 of P.D. No. 807, which mandates automatic reinstatement if a case is not decided within ninety days, Layug sought reinstatement after the 90-day period lapsed. His requests were unheeded, prompting him to file a petition for mandamus and certiorari on March 15, 1988, seeking reinstatement and payment of back salaries from December 2, 1987. During the pendency of the case, respondent Secretary Lourdes Quisumbing issued an order on October 13, 1988, lifting the preventive suspension and reinstating Layug effective immediately. Consequently, the Solicitor General moved to dismiss the petition as moot.
Upon reinstatement, Principal Presto assigned Layug to teach YDT/CAT subjects, explaining that his previous English and Biology assignments had been given to other teachers mid-term. Layug refused this assignment. Subsequently, Regional Director Teofilo Gomez ordered Layug’s temporary detail to the Guidance Counsellor’s Office, which Layug also rejected. After a warning, Layug finally complied and reported for work on January 5, 1989. Meanwhile, Layug filed motions with the Supreme Court, insisting on reinstatement to his former English and Biology teaching load and payment of back salaries from September 2, 1987.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) whether Layug is entitled to reinstatement to his specific former teaching assignments in English and Biology; (2) whether he is entitled to back salaries for the period of his preventive suspension; and (3) whether he is entitled to salaries for the period he refused his new assignments after reinstatement.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied Layug’s amended petition and motions. On the first issue, the Court held that reinstatement under the law means restoration to one’s position as a high school teacher, not to specific subject assignments. Citing Section 11 of the Education Act of 1982 (B.P. Blg. 232), the Court ruled that while a teacher cannot be compelled to accept assignments not related to his appointment, he also cannot demand specific assignments. The selection of subjects is a management prerogative of the school principal and regional director, based on qualifications and school needs. The reassignment was justified as his previous subjects were already allocated, and changing teachers mid-term would prejudice students.
On the second issue, the Court ruled Layug is not entitled to back salaries for the suspension period. His preventive suspension was legally authorized, and he had not been exonerated from the administrative charges. Critically, the investigation exceeded the 90-day limit due to delays caused by Layug’s own motions for postponement, absences, and request to transfer the venue. Under Section 42 of P.D. No. 807, periods of delay attributable to the respondent are excluded in computing the suspension period.
On the third issue, the Court held Layug is not entitled to salaries for the period he refused to accept his lawful reassignments from October 1988 to January 5, 1989. Applying the principle “as you work, so shall you earn,” salaries are earned only when service is rendered. By