G.R. No. L-15945 November 28, 1964
PORFIRIO VILLAMOR, ANGEL DE LA CRUZ, DONATO HALILI, JUAN TAON, PEDRO PRIPOCI, ET AL., petitioner-appellants, vs. THE HON. ARSENIO H. LACSON, HON. JUAN C. PAJO, EMILIO EJERCITO, MARCELINO SARMIENTO and JOSE ERASTAIN, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

In August 1956, eleven unclassified civil service employees of the Department of Public Services, City of Manila, were administratively charged for violating office regulations prohibiting the gathering and selling of empty tin cans, refuse, and waste papers. Mayor Arsenio H. Lacson found them guilty and ordered them to tender their resignations within 72 hours. Petitioners appealed to the Office of the President. On August 5, 1956, due to their refusal to resign, they were ordered to stop working pending appeal and were not paid salaries during this stoppage. On November 29, 1957, the Office of the President affirmed the finding of guilt but modified the penalty, considering the period from August 5, 1956, to the date of the decision (over one year) as sufficient punishment and ordered their immediate reinstatement, except for one employee who had resigned. Petitioners were reinstated on January 15, 1958. They then claimed entitlement to salaries for the excess period beyond a two-month suspension limit under Section 695 of the Administrative Code, totaling one year, three months, and nine days. The Office of the President denied the claim. Petitioners filed a mandamus action to compel payment of these salaries, plus attorney’s fees and costs.

ISSUE

1. Whether the lower court erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground that a movant for judgment on the pleadings admits both material allegations and conclusions of law in the answer.
2. Whether the lower court erred in sustaining that petitioners could be penalized with suspension without pay for one year, five months, and nine days.
3. Whether the lower court erred in declaring that petitioners are not protected by Section 260 of the Revised Administrative Code and therefore should not be paid salaries withheld during their preventive suspension.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision dismissing the case.
1. On the first issue, the Court held that a party moving for judgment on the pleadings without offering proof or giving the opposing party an opportunity to introduce evidence admits the truth of all material and relevant allegations of the opposing party and their legal implications. Thus, petitioners were deemed to have admitted the material allegations in respondents’ answers.
2. On the second and third issues, the Court found that the Mayor had the authority to dismiss petitioners for violation of office regulations. The Office of the President’s modification did not convert the penalty to suspension but deemed the separation from work for the period until reinstatement as sufficient punishment in lieu of outright dismissal. The modified decision did not exonerate petitioners. Since they did not work during the period claimed, there was no legal or equitable basis to order payment of salaries. The general rule is that a public official is not entitled to compensation for services not rendered. Even if considered suspension, payment of withheld salaries requires showing that the suspension was unjustified or the employee was innocent, which was not the case here. The action for mandamus failed because petitioners did not demonstrate a clear legal right to the salaries.