G.R. No. L-39557. May 03, 1984
ROMULO A. SALES, PETITIONER, VS. ISMAEL MATHAY, SR., AS AUDITOR GENERAL, EPIREY PANGRAMUYEN, AS COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SERVICE, DAVID CONSUNJI, AS ACTING SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT…
FERNANDO, C.J.:
now retired, arose from the denial of a claim for back salaries of
petitioner Romulo Sales, appointed Clerk II in the Bureau of Posts,
previously designated Acting Postmaster of Pinamalayan, Oriental
Mindoro, who was found short of P992.46 in his account on March 21, 1963
and of P1,000.00 on May 24, 1963. The amount in question covers the
period from February 9, 1966 to August 15, 1971, during which time he
was under suspension. It was on the latter date that he received a
resolution of the then Commissioner of Civil Service reducing what was
originally the penalty of dismissal to six months suspension, finding
petitioner guilty at most of gross neglect of duty.
The first letter of respondent Mathay, Sr., dated October 15, 1973,
denying the claim, follows: “In reply to your letter, dated March 6,
1973, requesting payment of back salaries during the period that you
were allegedly prevented to work as Postal Clerk II in the Pinamalayan
Post Office, Oriental Mindoro, for the period from February 9, 1966 to
August 15, 1971, please find enclosed a copy of the 4th Indorsement,
dated September 18, 1973, of the Acting Undersecretary of Public Works,
which is self-explanatory. Accordingly, this Office is not inclined to
allow payment of your salary corresponding to the period you were out of
the service.”[2] The second
letter from the same respondent reads thus: “In connection with your
letter of October 20, 1973 followed up by your letters of October 22 and
31, 1973, we wish to inform that after considering the fact and
circumstances of your case in conjunction with your arguments and the
decisions of the Supreme Court you cited, we are of the opinion that
your claim for back salaries from February 9, 1966 to August 15, 1971,
may not be authorized for the reason that you have not shown that your
suspension for the period covered by your claim is unjustified; that you
have not rendered service for said period; and that you were not
exonerated of the administrative charges against you. Furthermore, the
Commissioner of Civil Service in his decision of July 20, 1971, did not
expressly order the payment of your back salary. Indeed, in his latest
decision (1st Indorsement, dated January 9, 1973, copy attached), the
Commissioner of Civil Service denied your claim for payment of back
salaries. In view hereof, this Office finds no legal basis for allowing
your claim, and, therefore, reiterates its decision embodied in a
letter, dated October 15, 1973, to you.”[3] Hence this petition.
Respondents were required to comment. Solicitor General Estelito P.
Mendoza filed the Comment, later considered as the answer, as petition
was given due course. There was no dispute as to the above facts.
After the filing of the memoranda by both parties, the case was deemed
submitted for decision.
This petition for mandamus to review the actuation of respondent Mathay, Sr. lacks merit.
1. On the above facts, the question posed is whether petitioner
should be entitled to the payment of his back salary from February 9,
1966 to August 15, 1971. The answer must be in the negative. That is
to conform to the ruling in the case of Villamor v. Lacson.[4] The pertinent excerpt, in the ponencia of
Justice Paredes, follows: “It will be noted also that the modified
decision did not exonerate the petitioners. And if we take into account
the fact that they did not work during the period for which they are
now claiming salaries, there can be no legal or equitable basis to order
the payment of their salaries. The general proposition is that a
public official is not entitled to any compensation if he has not
rendered any service. As you work, so shall you earned. And even if we
consider the punishment as suspension, before a public official or
employee is entitled to payment of salaries withheld, it should be shown
that the suspension was unjustified or that the employee was innocent of
the charges proffered against him (F. B. Reyes vs. J. Hernandez, 71
Phil., 397), which is not the case in the instant proceedings.”[5]2. The next paragraph of the above ponencia of Justice
Paredes is equally conclusive on the matter of why the decision reached
by respondent Mathay, Sr. cannot be reversed. Thus: “The action at bar
is one of mandamus. For mandamus to lie, the legal
right of the petitioner must be well defined, clear and certain,
otherwise the petition for the issuance of such writ, will be denied
(III Moran’s Comments on the Rules of Court, 1963 Ed. 172). Petitioners
have not shown that they are entitled to the salaries, as a matter of
right.”[6]
WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed for lack of merit.
Makasiar, Aquino, Guerrero, and Abad Santos, JJ., concur.
Concepcion, Jr., De Castro, and Escolin, JJ., did not take part.
[1] Joined with him as
respondents were the then Commissioner of Civil Service Epi Rev
Pangramuyen, the then Acting Secretary of Department of Public Works
and Communications David Consunji and the then Postmaster General
Felizardo Tanabe.
[2] Letter of respondent Mathay, Sr., dated October 15, 1973.
[3] Letter of respondent Mathay, Sr., dated May 6, 1974.
[4] 120 Phil. 1213 (1964).
[5] Ibid, 1219. Cf.
Austria v. Auditor General, L-21918, January 24, 1967, 19 SCRA 79; Avila
v. Gimenez, L-24615, February 28, 1969, 27 SCRA 321; Yarcia v. City of
Baguio, L-27562, May 29, 1970, 33 SCRA 419.
[6] Ibid.