Sales v. Mathay, Sr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Romulo Sales, appointed Clerk II in the Bureau of Posts and previously Acting Postmaster of Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro, was found short of P992.46 in his account on March 21, 1963, and P1,000.00 on May 24, 1963. He was subsequently suspended. Procedural History: The Commissioner of Civil Service, in a resolution, reduced the penalty of dismissal to six months suspension, finding petitioner guilty at most of gross neglect of duty. Petitioner claimed back salaries for the period of his suspension, from February 9, 1966, to August 15, 1971. The Auditor General denied the claim twice, citing that the suspension was not shown to be unjustified, petitioner did not render service during the period, and he was not exonerated of the administrative charges. The Commissioner of Civil Service also denied the claim for back salaries in a subsequent decision. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for mandamus to compel the Auditor General to pay his back salaries.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner is entitled to back salaries for the period of his suspension. Whether the petition for mandamus should be granted.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The petitioner is not entitled to back salaries for the period of his suspension.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether petitioner is entitled to back salaries for the period of his suspension: The Court ruled in the negative, citing the ruling in Villamor v. Lacson. The general proposition is that a public official is not entitled to any compensation if he has not rendered any service. Even if the punishment is considered suspension, for a public official or employee to be entitled to payment of salaries withheld, it must be shown that the suspension was unjustified or that the employee was innocent of the charges proffered against him. In this case, the petitioner did not work during the period for which he claimed salaries, and the modified decision did not exonerate him. Furthermore, the Commissioner of Civil Service's decision did not expressly order the payment of back salaries and, in fact, denied the claim in a subsequent decision. On Whether the petition for mandamus should be granted: The Court held that the petition for mandamus lacks merit. For mandamus to lie, the legal right of the petitioner must be well-defined, clear, and certain. The petitioner failed to show that he was entitled to the salaries as a matter of right, given the circumstances of his suspension and the lack of exoneration from the charges.
Main Doctrine
A public official is not entitled to back salaries for the period of suspension if the suspension was not unjustified or if the official was not exonerated of the charges, as entitlement to compensation is generally predicated on service rendered.