G.R. No. L-47793. March 20, 1984.
Pedro P. Clemente, Petitioner, vs. The Commission on Audit, represented by Francisco S. Tantuico, Jr., Acting Chairman, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Pedro P. Clemente, a Deputy Auditor at the Commission on Audit, was separated from government service effective September 19, 1975. This separation was part of the large-scale government reorganization and purge implemented under Letter of Instruction No. 309, aimed at cleansing the bureaucracy. No specific administrative charge was pending against Clemente at the time of his removal. Following his appeals, the President, through a memorandum dated March 28, 1977, approved his reinstatement as Deputy Auditor of the Central Bank, effective immediately. Clemente reported back to duty on April 18, 1977.
Subsequently, Clemente filed a claim with the Commission on Audit for payment of back salaries covering the period from his separation to his reinstatement. The Office of the President, through a decision dated August 30, 1977, clarified the policy regarding such reinstatements. It ruled that while reinstatement ordinarily carries back salaries for dismissals resulting from ordinary administrative cases, separations under the “September 1975 purge” were distinct. Employees purged and later reinstated were considered under suspension during their separation and were not entitled to back wages, though they could charge the period to available leave credits. Relying on this ruling, the Commission on Audit denied Clemente’s claim.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Pedro P. Clemente is entitled to the payment of back salaries for the period he was separated from the service (September 19, 1975 to April 17, 1977) following his reinstatement.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that petitioner is NOT entitled to back salaries. The legal logic hinges on the distinct nature of his separation. The Court distinguished Clemente’s case from instances where back salaries are awarded following exoneration in an administrative proceeding. The general rule under Section 35 of the Civil Service Law, which mandates reinstatement with full back pay for an exonerated preventively suspended employee, was found inapplicable. Clemente was not under preventive suspension due to a pending administrative charge; his removal was a consequence of a broad governmental purge—a “ridding of elements regarded as suspect” as part of martial law reforms.
The Court upheld the policy articulated by the Office of the President, which categorized the purge as a unique administrative action aimed at institutional reform, not a disciplinary measure for individual misconduct. Consequently, reinstatement from such a purge did not constitute an exoneration entitling one to back pay. The presidential memorandum ordering Clemente’s reinstatement specified it was effective “immediately,” not retroactively, confirming the intent not to restore pay for the interim period. The Court noted that equity did not compel a different result, as the President’s discretion in ordering reinstatement without back salaries, considering the purge’s context, was final. Petitioner’s sole recourse was to charge the period to any accrued leave credits and commute them to their monetary value.