G.R. No. L-48643, January 18, 1982
Diosdado Octot, petitioner, vs. Jose R. Ybañez, in his capacity as Regional Director of Regional Health Office No. VII, Clemente S. Gatmaitan, in his capacity as Secretary of Health, and Presidential Executive Assistant Jacobo C. Clave, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Diosdado Octot, a Security Guard at Regional Health Office No. VII, was summarily dismissed on October 1, 1975, pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 6 and related issuances aimed at weeding out undesirable government employees. The dismissal was based on his being “notoriously undesirable,” stemming from a libel conviction by the Court of First Instance of Cebu, which was then pending appeal. Octot contested his dismissal as illegal and continued reporting for work, but his salary was withheld and his name was removed from the payroll. He was subsequently acquitted of the libel charge by the Court of Appeals.
Following his acquittal, Octot sought reinstatement through a letter in March 1977. The request was favorably recommended by the officer-in-charge of the regional office and was ultimately approved by the Office of the President, subject to the provisions of LOI No. 647. However, when instructed by the regional personnel officer to complete the necessary papers for his new appointment, Octot failed to appear on multiple occasions. Instead, he filed the instant petition for mandamus, seeking reinstatement, payment of back salaries and allowances from the date of his dismissal, and various damages.

ISSUE

The principal issue is whether petitioner Octot is entitled to back wages and damages for the period of his dismissal from October 1975 until his eventual reinstatement in 1979.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied Octot’s claims for back wages and damages. The Court, in a prior resolution, had already directed his reinstatement, which was complied with on June 11, 1979, rendering that part of the mandamus petition moot. On the claim for back wages, the Court ruled that such an award is not justified in the absence of proof that the respondent officials acted in bad faith or with grave abuse of discretion. The record showed that the dismissal was motivated by a desire to comply with PD No. 6 , not by ill will. Furthermore, the respondents demonstrated willingness to reinstate Octot upon his acquittal, and the Office of the President, in approving the reinstatement, invoked LOI No. 647, which does not authorize the payment of back wages to reinstated employees.
Regarding damages, the Court found no legal basis for an award. Moral damages were denied because any delay in reinstatement was attributable to Octot’s own fault in failing to complete the required appointment papers despite instructions. Exemplary damages were also denied, as they are recoverable only when the defendant acts in a wanton, fraudulent, or oppressive manner, which was not present here. The wrongful act must be accompanied by bad faith, and exemplary damages are generally not recoverable in a mandamus action unless the defendant acted with vindictiveness, conditions absent in this case. The petition for mandamus was thus resolved, with reinstatement already effected and the claims for monetary awards denied.