G.R. No. 89865; June 27, 1991
ATTY. RIZAL P. ECHECHE, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, MALACANANG PALACE, MANILA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Atty. Rizal P. Echeche was employed at the Bureau of Mines in 1974 but was purged from the service in 1975 under Letter of Instruction (LOI) No. 309. He subsequently filed requests for reinstatement. In 1986, the Assistant Secretary for Legal Affairs of the Ministry of Natural Resources, acting with the Minister’s authority, issued a resolution ordering his reinstatement as Legal Officer with payment of backwages. Consequently, in November 1986, he was reemployed as Legal Officer III. Petitioner then sought payment of his back salaries, allowances, and bonuses pursuant to the 1986 resolution.
The Director of Mines and the Minister of Natural Resources recommended the payment. However, the Office of the Executive Secretary denied the request, ruling that petitioner was merely re-employed under a grant of executive clemency (LOI 647) and not reinstated, as he was never recommended for reinstatement by the proper Appeals Committee. His motion for reconsideration was denied. The Court of Appeals later dismissed his petition, affirming the Office of the President’s denial of his monetary claims.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner is entitled to the payment of back salaries, allowances, and bonuses following his reemployment.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to back salaries. The legal logic rests on two key principles. First, the Court applied the precedent in Clemente v. Commission on Audit, which squarely addressed the effects of a purge under LOI No. 309. In that case, an employee similarly purged and later reinstated was denied back salaries because the separation, though later found to be without cause, was effected under a valid presidential directive issued in the exercise of administrative discipline. The purge was considered a valid dismissal for cause at the time it was implemented. Therefore, a subsequent reinstatement, especially when characterized as a re-employment under executive clemency, does not automatically confer a right to back wages for the period of separation.
Second, the Court upheld the authority of the Office of the Executive Secretary, acting by authority of the President, to review and reverse the order of the Minister of Natural Resources. Under the Constitution, the President has control over all executive departments, which includes the power to alter, modify, or nullify the acts of subordinates. The decision of the Deputy Executive Secretary denying the monetary claims is considered an act of the President and must be given full faith and credit. The 1986 resolution from the Ministry of Natural Resources did not attain finality, as it was subject to the President’s power of control. Thus, there was no error in denying the request for back salaries.