Civil Service Commission vs. Gentallan

A permanent appointee in the civil service who is illegally dismissed and later ordered reinstated is entitled to backwages, RATA, and bonuses from the time of illegal dismissal up to actual reinstatement, the employee being considered as not having left office. The Civil Service Commission, as the central personnel agency charged with determining qualifications and fitness, has legal standing to appeal a decision that adversely affects the civil service.

Mayor Jose Salcedo appointed Jocelyn Gentallan as local civil registrar of Jasaan, Misamis Oriental on December 14, 1994. The Sangguniang Bayan did not act on the appointment within fifteen days, and the CSC Regional Office approved it as permanent on January 5, 1995. A protest was dismissed because the protestant was not a qualified next-in-rank, but the CSC nonetheless reviewed Gentallan’s qualifications and found her wanting, revoking her appointment. Gentallan challenged the revocation before the Court of Appeals, which later declared her qualified and ordered reinstatement. The municipality initially refused to reinstate her and later refused to pay back salaries and other emoluments despite a regional CSC order granting them, prompting the legal dispute.

• Nature of the Appointment: On December 14, 1994, then Mayor Jose Salcedo appointed respondent Jocelyn S. Gentallan as local civil registrar of the Municipality of Jasaan, Misamis Oriental. The Sangguniang Bayan took no action within fifteen days, and the appointment was deemed approved. On January 5, 1995, CSC Regional Office No. 10 approved the appointment as permanent.

• The Protest and CSC Revocation: A research aide, Rosalina Asis, protested the appointment. The CSC dismissed the protest in Resolution No. 95-5317 because the protestant was not a qualified next-in-rank. In the same resolution, however, the CSC reviewed respondent’s qualifications and found her unqualified for lack of the required three-year relevant experience. The CSC revoked the appointment and denied reconsideration in Resolution No. 96-0582.

• Execution Pending Appeal: Pursuant to the CSC resolutions, Mayor Huberto C. Paurom directed respondent to vacate the position of local civil registrar and reassume her former position as Assistant Registration Officer.

• CA Reversal and Finality: Respondent challenged the CSC resolutions before the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 40482. The CA, in a Decision dated October 22, 1997, set aside the CSC resolutions and held respondent qualified for the position. The decision became final and executory on November 15, 1997.

• Refusal to Reinstate and Compromise: Despite a CSCRO-10 directive to implement the CA decision, the mayor did not reinstate respondent. Respondent filed a mandamus case with damages and indirect contempt before the RTC. The parties later reached an agreement, and on December 21, 1998, the mayor formally directed respondent to assume office as local civil registrar and issued a salary adjustment notice.

• Claim for Backwages and Benefits: Respondent then sought back salaries, RATA, and bonuses from CSCRO-10. Regional Director Annabelle B. Rosell, in an Order dated June 14, 1999, granted the claims. The provincial attorney, when consulted by the mayor, opined that respondent was entitled to the benefits under the final CA decision. Nonetheless, the mayor refused payment, and the Sangguniang Bayan deleted the corresponding appropriation items.

• CSC Reversal: Respondent asked the CSC to execute the CSCRO-10 Order. Instead, the CSC, in Resolution No. 001264 (May 24, 2000), reversed the regional order, reasoning that respondent was not illegally dismissed because the mayor’s order reverting her to her former position merely implemented lawful CSC resolutions. The CSC denied reconsideration in Resolution No. 002305.

• CA Decision Under Review: Respondent elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals, which set aside the CSC resolutions, reinstated the CSCRO-10 Order, and declared respondent entitled to back salaries, RATA, and bonuses. The municipality’s and the CSC’s motions for reconsideration were denied; the CSC’s motion was denied for lack of standing. Both the CSC and the municipality separately filed petitions for review before the Supreme Court.

• CSC’s Standing: The Civil Service Commission, invoking Civil Service Commission v. Dacoycoy, insisted that it had legal standing to appeal the case because it is the central personnel agency of the government charged with determining questions of qualifications and fitness and may appeal decisions adverse to the civil service.

• No Entitlement to Back Salaries: The CSC argued that the payment of back salaries, RATA, and bonuses to respondent, whose appointment had been previously revoked, would impair government effectiveness. It questioned whether reinstatement automatically carried the grant of differential backwages and benefits.

• No Illegal Dismissal (Municipality): The Municipality of Jasaan contended that respondent was not illegally removed; the mayor merely executed the lawful orders of the CSC when he reverted respondent to her former position as Assistant Registration Officer. The CSC resolutions were immediately executory even pending appeal, absent a restraining order or injunction, so respondent was not improperly denied the position.

• Ineffectivity of Appointment: The municipality maintained that respondent’s appointment as local civil registrar became ineffective by virtue of the CSC resolutions, at least until the CA reversed them. Salaries and emoluments should be reckoned only from the time she actually assumed the office on December 21, 1998.

• No Service Rendered: The municipality insisted that respondent did not render actual or constructive service as local civil registrar during the period claimed, and therefore was not entitled to compensation. She was properly compensated as Assistant Registration Officer when she re-assumed that position.

• Standing: Respondent Gentallan argued that the CSC had no standing to bring the petition because the CSC could not be a party adversely affected by the review and reversal of its own decision.

• Illegal Dismissal: Respondent claimed that her removal as local civil registrar was highly irregular and tainted with malice and bad faith. It arose from the protest of Rosalina Asis, not from any administrative disciplinary action, making the immediate execution of the ouster unnecessary. As a illegally dismissed employee, she was entitled to backwages, RATA, and bonuses.

• Finality of CA Decision on Illegality: Respondent maintained that the municipality could no longer question the CA’s conclusion in CA G.R. SP No. 40482 that she was illegally removed, since the municipality did not appeal that decision and it had become final. The finality of that decision was the basis for the subsequent award of backwages and benefits.

• CSC’s Standing: Whether the Civil Service Commission had legal standing to appeal the Court of Appeals’ decision and to file a motion for reconsideration.

• Entitlement to Backwages and Benefits: Whether respondent Gentallan was entitled to back salaries, RATA, and bonuses from the time of her removal as local civil registrar until her actual reinstatement.

• CSC’s Standing: The CSC, as the central personnel agency of the government under the Constitution, is charged with determining questions of qualifications, merit, and fitness of civil service appointees. As an institution whose primary concern is the effectiveness of the civil service system, it has standing to appeal a decision that adversely affects the civil service. The CSC’s appeal and motion for reconsideration were therefore allowed.

• Entitlement to Backwages and Benefits: Respondent was a permanent appointee enjoying security of tenure and could not be removed without just cause and due process. The CA had already found, in a decision that became final and executory, that respondent was qualified and that there was no factual or legal basis for her removal. An illegally dismissed government employee who is later ordered reinstated is entitled to backwages and other monetary benefits from the time of illegal dismissal up to reinstatement; such an employee is considered as not having left office and should receive the corresponding compensation. No finding of malice or bad faith on the part of respondent’s superior officers was made, so they could not be held personally liable; instead, the municipal government must disburse funds to answer for respondent’s claims.

• Security of tenure and reinstatement benefits — A permanent appointee in the civil service enjoys security of tenure and may not be removed or dismissed without just cause and due process. Where such employee is illegally dismissed and later ordered reinstated, the employee is entitled to backwages and other monetary benefits from the time of illegal dismissal up to actual reinstatement. The employee is considered as not having left office and should receive the corresponding compensation for the entire period.

• Standing of the Civil Service Commission — The Civil Service Commission, as the central personnel agency of the government constitutionally mandated to determine questions of qualifications, merit, and fitness, has legal standing to appeal a decision that adversely affects the civil service, because its institutional concern is the effectiveness of the civil service system.

• “An illegally dismissed government employee who is later ordered reinstated is entitled to backwages and other monetary benefits from the time of her illegal dismissal up to her reinstatement. This is only fair and just because an employee who is reinstated after having been illegally dismissed is considered as not having left her office and should be given the corresponding compensation at the time of her reinstatement.” — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi for the award of backwages and benefits, grounding the entitlement in the legal fiction that the reinstated employee never ceased to hold the office.

• “…there is no finding that malice or bad faith attended the illegal dismissal and refusal to reinstate Gentallan by her superior officers. Thus, they cannot be held personally accountable for her back salaries. The municipal government, therefore, should disburse funds to answer for her claims resulting from dismissal.” — This clarifies the allocation of liability between the public officer and the government entity in the absence of personal malice.

• Civil Service Commission v. Dacoycoy, G.R. No. 135805, 29 April 1999, 306 SCRA 425 — Cited to support the CSC’s standing to appeal decisions that adversely affect the civil service.
• Civil Service Commission v. Tinaya, G.R. No. 154898, 16 February 2005 — Cited on the CSC’s role as the central personnel agency under the Constitution.
• Constantino-David v. Pangandaman-Gania, G.R. No. 156039, 14 August 2003, 409 SCRA 80 — Relied upon for the principles that a reinstated illegally dismissed employee is entitled to backwages and that, absent malice or bad faith, the government entity rather than the superior officers bears the liability.
• Adiong v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 136480, 4 December 2001, 371 SCRA 373, citing Marohombsar v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126481, 18 February 2000, 326 SCRA 62 — Cited to underscore that a permanent appointee cannot be removed without just cause and due process.

• Section 2(3), Article IX-B, 1987 Constitution — The Civil Service Commission is the central personnel agency of the Government. Applied to establish the CSC’s standing to appeal decisions affecting the civil service.
• Section 46, Chapter 5, Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292) — Provisions on security of tenure and discipline in the civil service. Applied in holding that a permanent appointee cannot be removed without just cause and due process, and that subsequent reinstatement carries backwages and benefits.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Panganiban, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, and Garcia, JJ., concurred.