G.R. No. L-23957 March 18, 1967
ROMAN D. ABELLERA, plaintiff-appellee and appellant, vs. THE CITY OF BAGUIO, ET AL., defendants-appellants and appellee.

FACTS

Roman D. Abellera, cashier in the office of the City Treasurer of Baguio, was charged administratively for “Dishonesty and Gross Negligence in the Performance of Official Duties” after paying forged treasury warrants/checks, causing a city loss of P8,750.48. After preventive suspension, he was automatically reinstated on May 24, 1960. On June 6, 1961, the Commissioner of Civil Service found him guilty and considered him “resigned” effective the day after his last duty, with prejudice to reinstatement in positions involving money/property responsibility. Consequently, Abellera was dismissed on July 10, 1961, and replaced. Abellera appealed to the Civil Service Board of Appeals, which on January 25, 1963, modified the penalty to two months suspension without pay, affirming the Commissioner’s decision in all other respects. After communication delays, Abellera was allowed to report for work on November 11, 1963. However, on January 17, 1963, Abellera filed a mandamus action in the Court of First Instance of Baguio, alleging he had not been reinstated as cashier, was given other work, and had not been paid any salary, including back salaries from July 10, 1961. He sought reinstatement as city cashier with back salaries, moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. Respondents contended non-reinstatement as cashier was due to the cancellation of his bond, recommended by the City Treasurer following the administrative ruling of negligence, and that Abellera was offered a Special Deputy position. The case was submitted for judgment on the pleadings. The lower court, on June 8, 1964, declared the City Treasurer’s action in not giving Abellera cashier work was justified by the Civil Service Board of Appeals decision but ordered respondents to pay Abellera’s salary from July 10, 1961, to November 10, 1963, deducting two months’ pay, and to reinstate him to a city government position not involving custody of funds/property, with no award of damages. Both parties appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the award of back salaries to Abellera from July 10, 1961, to November 10, 1963, was correct.
2. Whether the lower court erred in not ordering respondents to pay damages and in not ordering Abellera’s reinstatement to the position of cashier.

RULING

1. Yes, the award of back salaries was correct. The rule on payment of back salaries during the period of suspension of a civil service member subsequently ordered reinstated is settled. Payment may be decreed not only if the employee is found innocent but also when the suspension is unjustified. Here, respondents dismissed Abellera upon receipt of the Civil Service Commissioner’s decision, even before the appeal period expired and before the decision became final. This premature separation was unjustified, as Abellera still had the right to appeal, which he exercised, resulting in a reduced penalty. Consequently, his suspension from July 10, 1961, to November 10, 1963, was unjustified, and payment of salaries for that period, minus the two-month penalty, is proper. Respondents’ contention that payment depends on the discretion of the proper department head is untenable, as the relevant provisions of the Revised Administrative Code have been superseded by Republic Act 2260 (Revised Civil Service Act), which no longer requires such authorization. The City of Baguio’s charter exemption from liability for officials’ negligence is inapplicable, as the unjustified action was a product of haste or overzeal, not negligence in law enforcement.
2. No, the lower court did not err. Considering Abellera’s act was found negligent by the Civil Service Board of Appeals, causing a substantial city loss, his dismissal by respondents cannot be entirely attributed to malice or bad faith. In the absence of a positive showing to the contrary, the respondents’ explanation that their action was for the best interest of the city government is accepted. Therefore, the denial of damages and the order for reinstatement to a position not involving custody of funds/property, as per the Civil Service Board’s affirmation of the prejudice to reinstatement in money/property positions, are sustained. The decision appealed from is affirmed.