Constantino-David vs. Pangandaman-Gania

An illegally dismissed government employee who is later ordered reinstated is entitled to back wages and other monetary benefits from the time of his illegal dismissal up to his reinstatement, and the “no work, no pay” principle does not apply where the failure to work was not of the employee’s own making. Additionally, when acting as counsel of record for a government agency, the Office of the Solicitor General must not solely sign the verification and certificate of non-forum shopping unless it alleges under oath the reasons client signatures are impossible, appends proof of client authorization and understanding of the pleading, and undertakes to inform the court of any change in the client’s stance.

Respondent Zenaida D. Pangandaman-Gania held the position of Director II and Manila Information and Liaisoning Officer of Mindanao State University, her appointment having been confirmed by the MSU Board of Regents on 1 June 1995. The appointment was never submitted to the Civil Service Commission for attestation. On 2 October 1998 she was barred from reporting for work after MSU issued a Special Order designating another person as Acting Director in her place, citing the expiration of her term.

• Appointment and Termination: Respondent Zenaida D. Pangandaman-Gania was Director II and Manila Information and Liaisoning Officer of Mindanao State University, her permanent appointment having been approved by the MSU Board of Regents on 10 April 1995 and confirmed on 1 June 1995. The appointment was not submitted to the CSC for attestation. On 2 October 1998, she received Special Order No. 477-P designating a certain Agnes Mangondato as Acting Director in her place, citing expiration of term; she was no longer allowed to report for work.
• CSC Proceedings: Respondent challenged her dismissal before the CSC. In Resolution No. 01-0558 dated 8 March 2001, the CSC declared the removal illegal, exonerated her from the charge of absence without official leave, ordered her reinstatement, but disallowed the payment of back salaries for the period she was not working, applying the principle of “quantum meruit” — compensation depends on actual performance of work.
• MSU’s Appeal and Respondent’s Execution Motions: MSU moved for reconsideration of the 8 March 2001 resolution; respondent moved for its early execution. CSC Resolution No. 01-1225 dated 19 July 2001 denied MSU’s motion and ordered the MSU President to allow respondent to assume and exercise her functions. MSU appealed to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 (CA-G.R. No. SP-66188) but no restraining order was issued. Respondent, who did not appeal the denial of back wages, filed a second motion for execution. CSC Resolution No. 01-1616 dated 4 October 2001 granted execution, declaring the 8 March 2001 resolution final and immediately executory.
• Belated Motion for Back Wages: On 8 October 2001, respondent for the first time moved to modify CSC Resolution No. 01-0558 to include back wages. CSC Resolution No. 02-0321 dated 28 February 2002 denied the motion, holding that respondent had not actually assumed and performed duties and therefore had no basis for back salaries.
• Appeal to the Court of Appeals: Respondent, acting pro se, appealed CSC Resolution No. 02-0321 to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 69668. She did not mention that she had not timely appealed CSC Resolution No. 01-0558, the real object of her appeal. She impleaded only CSC Chairperson Constantino-David and Commissioners Erestain and Valmores; MSU was not named as a party-respondent. The OSG, representing the CSC, filed a Comment rebutting the claim for back wages on the merits but did not raise any procedural infirmities.
• Court of Appeals Decision: The appellate court partially granted the petition, finding that respondent had assumed and exercised her functions as early as June 1995 and was prevented from performing them only by the illegal dismissal. It ordered payment of back wages from the illegal dismissal until 8 March 2001, but held that back wages after that date — arising from MSU’s alleged bad-faith refusal to comply — must be claimed in a separate forum against the responsible officers.

• Finality and Lack of Jurisdiction: Petitioners maintained that respondent lost the right to seek modification of CSC Resolution No. 01-0558 because she failed to move for reconsideration or appeal within the fifteen-day reglementary period; consequently, neither the CSC nor the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to amend the final resolution.
• No Actual Assumption of Duties: Petitioners argued that respondent was not entitled to back wages because she never actually reported for work and thus had no basis for compensation under the principle of “no work, no pay.”
• CSC’s Standing: Petitioners asserted that the CSC was a proper party to appeal the adverse Court of Appeals decision, as it was the party aggrieved by the reversal of its ruling on back wages and its mandate as the central personnel agency was affected.

• CSC Not a Proper Party: Respondent contended that the CSC cannot be a party-petitioner in a case where its own decision is the subject of review, citing Civil Service Commission v. Court of Appeals, because the real party-in-interest is the employee whose rights are prejudiced.
• Entitlement to Back Wages: Respondent claimed she had actually assumed and exercised her duties from June 1995 until her illegal dismissal in September 1998, as documented in MSU’s payroll and attendance records; her inability to work thereafter was caused by the illegal dismissal and MSU’s persistent refusal to reinstate her, rendering the “no work, no pay” principle inapplicable.

• Procedural Defects in Respondent’s Appeal: Whether the Court of Appeals correctly entertained respondent’s petition despite her failure to timely appeal the denial of back wages and her failure to implead MSU as a party-respondent.
• Standing of the CSC: Whether the Civil Service Commission had legal standing to file the petition for review before the Supreme Court.
• OSG’s Authority to Sign Verification/Certification: Whether the Office of the Solicitor General properly executed the verification and certificate of non-forum shopping on behalf of the CSC as its counsel of record.
• Entitlement to Back Wages: Whether respondent is entitled to back salaries and other benefits for the period of her illegal dismissal.
• Period of Liability: If entitled, for what period should back wages be awarded, and against whom should liability be imposed.

• Procedural Defects in Respondent’s Appeal: The procedural lapses were overlooked in the interest of justice. Respondent indeed lost the right to seek modification of CSC Resolution No. 01-0558 by failing to appeal within 15 days; however, the CSC itself entertained her motions on the merits and issued Resolution No. 02-0321, in legitimate exercise of its mandate to conduct proceedings without strict adherence to technical rules. The non-joinder of MSU was excused because neither the Court of Appeals, the CSC, nor the OSG raised the defect, and the OSG’s Comment effectively advanced the same interests MSU would have argued; thus no injury resulted. Rigid application of procedural rules would obstruct the broader interests of justice, especially given MSU’s persistent refusal to reinstate respondent.
• Standing of the CSC: The CSC was not the real party-in-interest; the material interest in the claim for back wages belonged to MSU, which instigated the illegal dismissal, not to the CSC. However, because respondent herself had omitted MSU as a party in the appellate proceedings, she could not thereafter insist that MSU be the petitioner. By force of circumstances, the CSC was allowed to pursue the appeal to prevent an effective denial of review.
• OSG’s Authority to Sign Verification/Certification: The OSG’s practice of signing the verification and certificate of non-forum shopping for its client agencies without proper authorization was prospectively regulated. When acting as counsel of record for a government agency, the OSG must (a) allege under oath the circumstances that make client signatures impossible to obtain within the period; (b) append authentic documentary proof that the client authorized the filing and understood and adopted the allegations, and an affirmation that no other action involving the same issues is pending; and (c) undertake to inform the court promptly of any change in the client’s stance. A letter-endorsement or correspondence from the client to the OSG may suffice as evidence of authorization. Because this rule was declared for the first time, the defect was excused.
• Entitlement to Back Wages: Respondent was entitled to back wages. Substantial evidence — general payroll and attendance sheets — showed she had assumed and exercised her functions from June 1995 until her illegal dismissal in September 1998. The “no work, no pay” principle was inapplicable because respondent’s inability to work was not of her own making; her absence was forced by the illegal dismissal and the subsequent refusal to reinstate her. An illegally dismissed government employee who is reinstated is considered as not having left office and must receive back wages and monetary benefits from dismissal to reinstatement, pursuant to Gabriel v. Domingo.
• Period of Liability: MSU, as a government institution, must pay back wages from the time of illegal dismissal (October 1998) until CSC Resolution No. 01-1225 was promulgated on 19 July 2001 — the date MSU’s motion for reconsideration was denied and the reinstatement order became final and immediately executory — rather than 8 March 2001 as the Court of Appeals held. For the period after 19 July 2001 until actual reinstatement, liability must be determined in a separate proceeding where allegations of bad faith by the responsible MSU officers can be threshed out; if the refusal to reinstate was in bad faith, those officers shall be personally liable, otherwise the government bears the cost.

• Back Wages for Illegally Dismissed Government Employees — An illegally dismissed government employee who is later ordered reinstated is entitled to back wages and other monetary benefits from the time of illegal dismissal up to reinstatement. The employee is considered as not having left office and should be given comparable compensation at the time of reinstatement. The policy of “no work, no pay” does not apply because the employee’s failure to render service was not of his own making.
• Personal Liability of Superior Officers for Refusal to Reinstate — If the illegal dismissal or the subsequent refusal to reinstate an employee after a final order of reinstatement is found to have been done in bad faith or due to personal malice, the responsible superior officers are personally liable for the back salaries accruing during the period of delay. Otherwise, the government disburses the funds. (Based on Gabriel v. Domingo, Secs. 38 and 39, Book I, E.O. 292, and relevant Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations.)
• OSG’s Authority to Sign Verification and Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping — When acting as counsel of record for a government agency, the Office of the Solicitor General must not sign the verification and certificate of non-forum shopping solely on its own. It must comply with three requisites: (a) allege under oath the circumstances that make the client’s signatures impossible to obtain within the filing period; (b) append authentic documentary proof that the client authorized the filing and understood the allegations, and an affirmation that no other action involving the same issues is pending; and (c) undertake to inform the court promptly of any change in the client’s stance. A client’s letter-endorsement or correspondence may serve as satisfactory evidence. This rule was declared prospective.
• Relaxation of Procedural Rules in the Interest of Justice — Procedural rules may be relaxed when their strict application would obstruct rather than serve the broader interests of justice, especially where the party-litigant is given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits and the defects did not cause injury. The Civil Service Commission is expressly authorized to conduct administrative investigations without strict adherence to technical rules of procedure and evidence.

• “A system of procedure is perverted from its proper function when it multiplies impediments to justice without the warrant of clear necessity.” — Introductory quotation from Cardozo, setting the framework for the relaxation of rules.
• “We cannot look with favor on a course of action which would place the administration of justice in a straightjacket for then the result would be a poor kind of justice, if there would be justice at all. … What should guide judicial action is the principle that a party-litigant is to be given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his complaint or defense rather than for him to lose life, liberty, honor or property on technicalities.” — Applied from Obut v. Court of Appeals.
• “An illegally dismissed government employee who is later ordered reinstated is entitled to back wages and other monetary benefits from the time of his illegal dismissal up to his reinstatement. This is only fair and sensible because an employee who is reinstated after having been illegally dismissed is considered as not having left his office and should be given a comparable compensation at the time of his reinstatement.”
• “To withhold her back salaries and other benefits during her illegal dismissal would put to naught the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure for those in the civil service.”

• Gabriel v. Domingo, G.R. No. 87420, 17 September 1990 — Established the rule on back wages for illegally dismissed government employees and distinguished when superior officers are personally liable for refusal to reinstate in bad faith; controlling on the substantive entitlement.
• Civil Service Commission v. Dacoycoy, G.R. No. 135805, 29 April 1999 — Clarified that the CSC may appeal an adverse CA decision when the ruling seriously prejudices the civil service system, distinguishing standing in disciplinary cases; cited to determine the CSC’s standing.
• Civil Service Commission v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126354, 15 December 1999 — Held that the CSC is not the real party-in-interest in non-disciplinary personnel actions; the aggrieved employee should bring the appeal; distinguished from the present case.
• Obut v. Court of Appeals, No. L-40535, 30 April 1976 — Applied for the principle that rigid application of technical rules should not defeat substantial justice.
• City Warden of the Manila City Jail v. Estrella, G.R. No. 141211, 31 August 2001, and Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. S.C. Johnson and Son, Inc., G.R. No. 127105, 25 June 1999 — Discussed and distinguished on the OSG’s authority to sign verification/certification; the Court clarified these do not authorize the OSG to sign for a client agency when acting as counsel of record without proper justification.

• Rule 43, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Governs appeals from quasi-judicial agencies to the Court of Appeals; applied to both MSU’s and respondent’s appeals; the 15-day reglementary period and finality provisions were invoked.
• Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, Rule VI, Sec. 80 — A CSC decision becomes final after fifteen days if no motion for reconsideration or appeal is filed.
• Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, Rule VI, Sec. 82 — Filing of a petition for review with the Court of Appeals does not stop execution of the CSC’s final decision unless a restraining order or injunction is issued.
• Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, Rule I, Sec. 3 — Administrative investigations shall be conducted without strict adherence to technical rules of procedure; invoked to justify the CSC’s entertainment of respondent’s untimely motions.
• E.O. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987), Book I, Secs. 38 and 39 — Liability of superior and subordinate officers for acts done in bad faith or malice; cited in relation to personal liability for refusal to reinstate.
• Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations, Rule XIV, Secs. 50, 53, 55, 56, and 58 — Provisions on finality of CSC decisions, contempt for non-implementation of orders, and damages for delay in reinstatement (back salaries).
• 1987 Administrative Code, Book IV, Title III, Chapter 12, Sec. 35 — Mandates that the OSG shall represent the government, its agencies and instrumentalities; cited in the discussion of the OSG’s role.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Azcuna, and Tinga, JJ., concur. Callejo, Sr., J., on leave.