G.R. No. L-39557 May 3, 1984
ROMULO A. SALES, petitioner, vs. ISMAEL MATHAY, SR., as Auditor General, EPI REY PANGRAMUYEN, as Commissioner of Civil Service, DAVID CONSUNJI, as Acting Secretary of Department of Public Works and Communications and FELIZARDO TANABE, as Postmaster General, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Romulo A. Sales, a Clerk II designated as Acting Postmaster, was found short in his cash accountabilities in 1963. He was subsequently placed under preventive suspension starting February 9, 1966. On July 20, 1971, the Commissioner of Civil Service modified the original penalty of dismissal to a six-month suspension, finding him guilty of gross neglect of duty. He was reinstated on August 15, 1971. Sales then claimed payment of his back salaries covering the entire period of his suspension from February 9, 1966, to August 15, 1971.
Respondent Auditor General Ismael Mathay, Sr., denied the claim in two letters. The denial was grounded on the premises that Sales had not rendered any service during the suspension period, that he was not exonerated of the administrative charges, and that the Civil Service Commissioner’s decision modifying the penalty did not expressly order the payment of back salaries. The Commissioner of Civil Service had also separately denied the claim for back salaries.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Romulo A. Sales is entitled to the payment of back salaries for the period of his preventive suspension from February 9, 1966, to August 15, 1971.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that Sales is not entitled to back salaries. The Court anchored its decision on the established doctrine that a public official is not entitled to compensation for services not rendered. The governing principle is “As you work, so shall you earn.” The Court cited its precedent in Villamor v. Lacson, which held that for a suspended employee to be entitled to payment of withheld salaries, it must be shown that the suspension was unjustified or that the employee was innocent of the charges.
In this case, the Civil Service Commission’s resolution merely reduced the penalty from dismissal to a six-month suspension; it did not exonerate Sales. He was still found guilty of gross neglect of duty. Consequently, his prolonged suspension prior to the final resolution was not deemed unjustified. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that mandamus, the remedy sought by Sales, only lies when the petitioner’s legal right is clear and certain. Since Sales failed to establish a clear right to back salaries—given his guilt and lack of service—the writ of mandamus cannot issue. The Auditor General’s denial of the claim was therefore legally correct.