SALVADOR v CA
FACTS
Conrado Salvador (petitioner) has been employed as a Forestry Supervisor II for 8 years in DENR. Sometime in 1987, DENR was reorganized and the petitioner was constrained to accept the lower position of Senior Executive Assistant, a coterminous employment, with a term not to exceed 3 years. Later on, he was promoted as Forester III however this position is still lower in rank compared to Forestry Supervisor which he previously held. In January 1992, he received a letter from the Director of DENR stating that he was deemed terminated his position being a coterminous one. Salvador, joined his other employees who were illegally dismissed as well through a complaint-in- intervention. Decision was rendered in favour of the complainants, including Salvador. This decision (GR103121) became final and executory.
Civil Service Commission instructed DENR to appoint the illegally dismissed employees but DENR did not heed CSC’s instructions. 3 years after, Salvador filed a petition to hold the directors of DENR in contempt for wilfully failing to comply the execution of judgement.
ISSUE
1. Whether or not Salvador’s acceptance of a coterminous position excludes him within the scope of the decision which attained finality?
2. Whether or not the respondents could be held in contempt?
HELD
1. NO. The high tribunal ruled in favour of Salvador. Although the DENR Memorandum states that among those people to be excluded from the Decision are those who accepted coterminous appointments, the SC held that Salvador’s acceptance of the coterminous appointment was brought about by necessity. “Petitioner’s application for and acceptance of a lower position in DENR, under the circumstances, was the practical and responsible thing to do, and cannot be construed against him such as to foreclose his right to question the legality of his termination and to claim the position he held previous to the organization” SC ordered the DENR officials to reinstate Salvador.
2. NO. “Notwithstanding respondent’s non-compliance with the decision in GR103121, this court believes that the same does not constitute a indirect contempt of court. Disobedience of or resistance to a judgement of a court, to be punishable as contempt must be willful. In this case, this court finds that public respondent Secretary of the DENR acted in good faith. True, respondent Secretary committed error in judgement, but that per se cannot be considered contumacious.
