Caniete v. Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Herman Caniete and Wilfredo Rosario, public school teachers, were charged with participation in mass actions/strikes on September 20 and 21, 1990, and were placed under preventive suspension. Secretary Isidro Cariño found them guilty and dismissed them from service. Procedural History: The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) modified the decision, finding them guilty only of Gross Violation of Existing Civil Service Law and Rules and suspending them for three months without pay. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) further modified this, finding them guilty only of absence without leave and meting out the penalty of reprimand, ordering their reinstatement without back salaries. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the CSC's decision, denying back salaries based on jurisprudence that back salaries are only payable if the employee is exonerated and the suspension/dismissal is declared illegal. The Petition: Petitioners sought reversal of the CA decision, specifically questioning the denial of their back salaries.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioners are entitled to their back salaries upon reinstatement after being found guilty only of violating reasonable office rules and regulations and penalized with reprimand, despite initial dismissal for alleged participation in mass actions/strikes. Whether the ruling in Gloria v. Court of Appeals is applicable to the present case.
Ruling
The petition is given DUE COURSE. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondent DECS is ORDERED to pay petitioners Herman Caniete and Wilfredo Rosario their salaries from the time of their dismissal until their actual reinstatement, for a period not exceeding five years.
Ratio Decidendi
On the entitlement to back salaries: The Court found for the petitioners, holding that they are entitled to back salaries. The Court reiterated the principle that while employees under preventive suspension pending investigation are not entitled to compensation as it is a means to conduct an unhampered investigation, those under preventive suspension pending appeal, who are eventually exonerated, are entitled to compensation. The Court emphasized that preventive suspension pending appeal is considered punitive and, if the employee is exonerated, it is in effect considered illegal, thus entitling the employee to reinstatement with full pay for the period of suspension. The Court cited Gloria v. Court of Appeals and Bangalisan as precedents where teachers similarly found guilty of violating reasonable office rules and regulations after being exonerated of strike participation were granted back salaries. The Court reasoned that denying back wages in such a scenario would amount to punishing the employee after exoneration from the charges that caused their dismissal. On the applicability of Gloria v. Court of Appeals: The Court held that the ruling in Gloria v. Court of Appeals is squarely applicable to the present case. The factual circumstances in Gloria were substantially the same: public school teachers were suspended or dismissed for alleged participation in strikes in September and October 1990, exonerated of that charge, found guilty only of violating reasonable office rules and regulations for failing to file leave applications, and consequently penalized with reprimand and ordered reinstated. In Gloria, the Court affirmed the payment of back salaries, distinguishing between preventive suspension pending investigation and preventive suspension pending appeal. The Court found no reason to deviate from this established jurisprudence in the present case.
Main Doctrine
Public school teachers who are exonerated of charges for participating in mass actions/strikes and are found guilty only of violating reasonable office rules and regulations, penalized with reprimand, are entitled to back salaries for the period of their preventive suspension pending appeal.