G.R. No. L-21967; September 29, 1966
EDUARDO G. BAUTISTA, petitioner, vs. GENERAL MACARIO PERALTA, JESUS G. PERLAS, OLEGARIO CANTOS, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Eduardo G. Bautista, an employee of the National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority (NWSA), was administratively charged, suspended pending investigation on May 30, 1958, and dismissed effective that date by the Civil Service Commission on October 8, 1958. On appeal, the Civil Service Board of Appeals modified the decision on May 13, 1963, imposing only a two-month suspension without pay, chargeable to his preventive suspension. The NWSA’s motion for reconsideration was denied on June 30, 1963. Petitioner was reinstated on September 3, 1963, without back wages. He then filed a petition for mandamus directly with the Supreme Court, seeking payment of back wages, living allowance, damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. The Government Corporate Counsel and other officials (Undersecretary of Public Works and Communications, Commissioner of Civil Service, Deputy Auditor General) subsequently issued opinions ruling that petitioner was entitled to back salaries for the period of his suspension minus the two-month punitive suspension.

ISSUE

Whether mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the respondents, as members of the NWSA Board of Directors, to pay petitioner’s back salaries and other claimed amounts based on the decision of the Civil Service Board of Appeals.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the writ of mandamus solely for the payment of back salaries, denying it for the other claims. The Court held that the decision of the Civil Service Board of Appeals clearly imposed only a two-month suspension without pay, chargeable to the preventive suspension period. Since preventive suspension is not a penalty but a precautionary measure, and petitioner had already been under preventive suspension for almost five years, he was entitled to back salaries for the period beyond the two-month punitive suspension. Denying back salaries would effectively amend the Board’s decision and convert the preventive suspension into an additional penalty. The Court further ruled that mandamus was appropriate for the back salary claim because it was a duty specifically enjoined by law, as confirmed by the opinions of competent government officials. However, claims for living allowance, damages, and attorney’s fees were not clearly established as legal duties under the Board’s decision and should be pursued in an ordinary civil action. Respondents were ordered to pay the back salaries with legal interest from the date of reinstatement until actual payment, plus costs.