GR 92016; (July, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. No. 92016 July 30, 1990
JOEL ALLIAN, petitioner, vs. THE CHAIRMAN & COMMISSIONERS, CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Joel Allian was separated from his position as Personnel Specialist II on February 12, 1988, during the CSC’s reorganization, allegedly for incurring unauthorized leaves of absence. He contested this before the Reorganization Appeals Board (RAB), which, in Resolution No. 88-29 dated August 4, 1988, found his separation “not in order” and directed his reappointment to his former position. This resolution became final. Despite his repeated requests for reinstatement with back salaries, the CSC only reinstated him on October 30, 1989, through Resolution No. 89-813, but denied his claim for back wages. The CSC justified the denial by asserting his dismissal was valid, his reappointment was an act of compassion, and he did not render service during his separation.
ISSUE
Whether Joel Allian is entitled to full back salaries and benefits for the period of his illegal separation from service.
RULING
Yes, Allian is entitled to full back salaries. The Supreme Court granted the petition, ordering the CSC to pay his salaries and benefits from February 2, 1988, to October 30, 1989. The legal foundation is Section 9 of Republic Act No. 6656 , which mandates that employees illegally separated during a reorganization shall be reinstated “without loss of seniority and shall be entitled to full pay for the period of separation.” The Court rejected the CSC’s justifications. First, the RAB’s final resolution declaring his separation “not in order” constituted a definitive finding of illegal dismissal, entitling him to reinstatement as a matter of right, not mere compassion. Second, the alleged ground for dismissal—unauthorized leave—was invalid due to procedural defects. The CSC failed to comply with its own Memorandum Circular requiring written notification to an AWOL employee before dropping them from the rolls. Allian was neither formally charged nor given an opportunity to defend himself, violating due process. Consequently, he cannot be faulted for not rendering service during his illegal ouster. The deprivation was unlawful, making the payment of back salaries a statutory entitlement, not contingent upon actual service. This ruling aligns with precedent, such as Dario vs. Mison, which affirmed back salary awards for employees improperly removed during reorganizations.