Herrera v. Larrazabal
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Adelaido Herrera was appointed patrolman in 1960. He was suspended in 1967 due to a criminal case for serious physical injuries thru reckless imprudence, which was later dismissed. In 1969, another criminal case for public disturbance was filed against him, and he was also administratively charged with grave misconduct, serious irregularities, and drunkenness. He was acquitted in the public disturbance case in 1970. Procedural History: Herrera sought reinstatement and back salaries after his acquittal in the criminal cases. An amicable settlement was reached, agreeing to his reinstatement effective February 1, 1972, and payment of back salaries from suspension to reinstatement, provided that payment would be made only upon receipt of the Police Commission's (POLCOM) final decision exonerating him from the pending administrative case. The lower court approved this settlement. When appellants refused to pay back salaries without the POLCOM decision, Herrera filed an Omnibus Motion for contempt and execution. The lower court ordered payment of back salaries from October 4, 1967, to January 31, 1972, interpreting Section 16 of the Police Act of 1966 to limit withholding to 60 days of suspension, regardless of exoneration. Appellants' motion for reconsideration was denied, and a writ of execution was issued. Subsequently, NAPOLCOM, in Administrative Case No. 953, found Herrera guilty of grave misconduct, serious irregularities, and drunkenness, ordering his dismissal from the service. The City Treasurer refused to pay the remaining balance of back salaries, prompting Herrera to seek an alias writ of execution. The lower court granted this, leading to the present appeal. The Petition: The appellants appealed the lower court's order directing the issuance of an alias writ of execution for the unpaid balance of back salaries, arguing that the amicable settlement's condition for payment (exoneration from the administrative case) was not met, as Herrera was dismissed from service.
Issue(s)
Whether the amicable settlement, particularly paragraph 2 regarding the payment of back salaries, is valid and binding upon the parties. Whether appellee Adelaido Herrera is entitled to the payment of back salaries from the time of his suspension until his reinstatement, notwithstanding the decision of the NAPOLCOM finding him guilty of the administrative charges.
Ruling
The Order of the lower court dated August 4, 1973, directing the issuance of an alias writ of execution in favor of appellee for the uncollected balance of P4,307.85 is hereby set aside.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity and binding effect of the Amicable Settlement: The Court found that the Amicable Settlement, which stipulated that back salaries would be paid only upon receipt of the Police Commission's final decision exonerating the appellee from the administrative case, was valid and binding. This stipulation was in accordance with law and was approved by the lower court. The Court emphasized that the settlement was agreed upon by both parties, including the appellee, and therefore, he is bound by its terms. The subsequent dismissal of the appellee from service by the NAPOLCOM meant that the condition for payment of back salaries was not met. The Court noted that while Section 16 of Republic Act No. 4864 provides for reinstatement and payment of salary upon acquittal in a criminal case, the administrative case had different requirements for salary entitlement during suspension. The settlement specifically tied back salary payment to exoneration in the administrative case, a condition that was not fulfilled. On entitlement to back salaries despite dismissal: The Court ruled that appellee Adelaido Herrera is not entitled to the payment of back salaries from the time of his suspension until his reinstatement because he was ultimately dismissed from service based on the NAPOLCOM's decision finding him guilty of grave misconduct, serious irregularities, and drunkenness. The Court clarified that under the first paragraph of Section 16 of Republic Act No. 4864, a person preventively suspended administratively is entitled to salary only upon exoneration. Even though the second paragraph of Section 16 grants entitlement to salary upon acquittal in a criminal case, this provision is distinct from the administrative proceedings. Furthermore, Section 4, Rule X of the Police Manual and Section 7 of PD No. 12-A explicitly state that payment of salary during preventive suspension is contingent upon exoneration. Since Herrera was not exonerated but dismissed, the condition for receiving back salaries was not met, rendering the amicable settlement's provision on back salary payment inapplicable in his favor.
Main Doctrine
Payment of back salaries of a suspended police officer is contingent upon exoneration from the administrative charge, as stipulated in an amicable settlement, even if the settlement is interpreted in light of the Police Act of 1966, if the officer is ultimately dismissed from service.