GLORIA V. COURT OF APPEALS
FACTS
Abad, Bandigas, Somebang and Margallo, private respondents, are public school teachers. Some time in September and October 1990, during the teacher’s strikes, they did not report for work. For this reason they were administratively charged with 1) grave misconduct; 2) gross violation of Civil Service Rules; 3) gross neglect of duty; 4) refusal to perform official duty; 5) gross insubordination; 6) conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service and; 7) AWOL. They were placed under preventive suspension. Investigation ended before the lapse of the 90 day period. Margallo was dismissed from the service. The three others were suspended for 6 months. On appeal to the CA, the court mitigated the punishment to reprimand only. Hence their reinstatement. Now the reinstated teachers are asking for back wages during the period of their suspension and pending appeal (before the CA exonerated them).
ISSUE
Whether the teachers are entitled to backwages for the period pending their appeal if they are subsequently exonerated.
HELD
YES, they are entitled to full pay pending their appeal. To justify the award of back wages, the respondent must be exonerated from the charges and his suspension be unjust. Preventive suspension pending appeal is actually punitive, and it is actually considered illegal if the respondent is exonerated and the administrative decision finding him guilty is reversed. Hence he should be reinstated with full pay for the period of the suspension. Section 47 (4) of the Civil Service Decree states that the respondent “shall be considered as under preventive suspension during the pendency of the appeal in the event he wins.” On the other hand if his conviction is affirmed the period of his suspension becomes part of the final penalty of suspension or dismissal. In the case at bar the respondents won in their appeal, therefore the period of suspension pending their appeal would be considered as part of the preventive suspension, entitling them to full pay because they were eventually exonerated and their suspension was unjustified.
They are still entitled to back salaries even if they were still reprimanded.
