LEONARDO AVILA, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. PEDRO M. GIMENEZ, AS AUDITOR GENERAL, ABELARDO SUBIDO, AS COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SERVICE, THE PROVINCE OF BUKIDNON, LUIS R. LLAUDER, AS …

Avila versus Gimenez

The Case

This is Avila versus Gimenez, a petition brought by Leonardo Avila against the Auditor General, the Commissioner of Civil Service, and the Province of Bukidnon, seeking to recover the salaries withheld from him during a preventive suspension that stretched over twelve and a half years. The Supreme Court here settles a question every civil servant must know: does reinstatement after a long preventive suspension automatically carry the right to back salaries? The answer turns on one word, exoneration, and that is why this case matters.

Procedural History

Avila filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Bukidnon for the recovery of his salaries from the time of his suspension. The Provincial Fiscal and the Solicitor General moved to dismiss on behalf of the respondents. The lower court, presided by Judge Abundio Arrieta, found the motion meritorious and dismissed the petition in an order dated November 9, 1964. Avila appealed that order of dismissal directly to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors the lower court's reliance on the delay in filing the claim and its holding that emoluments belong to the person who actually rendered the service.

Facts

On January 13, 1951, the Auditor General preventively suspended Avila from his position as Provincial Auditor of Bukidnon, because a criminal case for malversation of public funds had been filed against him and the provincial treasurer, and because an administrative case had also been commenced against him. On February 12, 1953, the Commissioner of Civil Service rendered a decision in the administrative case finding him guilty, imposing a fine of one month's pay and a reprimand. Avila did not appeal that decision.

The Auditor General refused reinstatement because the criminal case was still pending. Avila was eventually convicted by the Court of First Instance of Bukidnon, and on November 25, 1958, the Auditor General recommended his permanent separation effective as of the date of suspension. The Civil Service Commission approved the recommendation, separating him as of January 13, 1959. He appealed to the Civil Service Board of Appeals. Meanwhile, the Court of Appeals set aside his conviction and ordered a new trial, and on August 5, 1960, he again sought reinstatement.

On October 22, 1962, the Civil Service Commission interposed no objection to his reinstatement, but nothing was done. On February 6, 1963, the Commissioner again called the Auditor General's attention to the matter. Finally, on August 15, 1963, Avila was extended an appointment as Acting Provincial Auditor of Bukidnon, which he accepted. He then sued for the salaries withheld during his suspension.

Issues

• Whether or not a public officer who is reinstated after preventive suspension has a right to recover the salaries withheld during that suspension, even if he was not exonerated of the charge against him.
• Whether or not the delay in filing the claim for salary bars its recovery.

Applicable Provisions

Section 260 of the Revised Administrative Code provides:

When the Chief of a Bureau or Office suspends a subordinate officer or employee from duty, the person suspended shall not receive pay during suspension unless the Department Head shall so order; but upon subsequent reinstatement of the suspended person or upon his exoneration, if death should render reinstatement impossible, any salary so withheld shall be paid, but without prejudice to the application of the disciplinary provisions of section six hundred and ninety-five hereof.

This is the provision Avila invokes, and the Court reads it in the light of the decisions construing it, particularly the requirement of exoneration.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that there is no right to back salaries. The Court noted that the cases Avila cited, including Batungbakal, National Rice and Corn Corporation, Tabora, and Tan versus Gimenez, would apply only if he had been exonerated of the charge against him. He was not. The Commissioner of Civil Service had found him guilty and fined him one month's pay with a reprimand, and he never appealed that decision. The Court declared that such a conviction is fatal to his claim, and quoted with approval the rule in Gonzales versus Hernandez:

The law which allows payment of back salaries in cases like this is Section 260 of the Revised Administrative Code. A perusal of the decisions of this Court in cases similar to the case at bar, however, show that back salaries are ordered paid to an officer or an employee only if he is exonerated of the charge against him and his suspension or dismissal is found and declared to be illegal. In the case at bar, plaintiff was not completely exonerated, because although the decision of the Commissioner of Civil Service was modified and the plaintiff was allowed to be reinstated, the decision ordered him to forfeit two months pay and not to be given back salaries.

The Court added that once the tyranny of literalness is rejected, and the decisive feature of the Gonzales decision is recognized, Avila's case falls apart completely. On the second issue, because no right to back salary exists, the Court found it unnecessary to inquire whether the delay barred the claim.

Doctrine

Back salaries may be ordered paid to a suspended or dismissed officer or employee only if he is exonerated of the charge against him and his suspension or dismissal is found and declared illegal. A mere reinstatement, without exoneration, does not entitle him to the salaries withheld during the suspension, even under Section 260 of the Revised Administrative Code. The statutory phrase "upon subsequent reinstatement of the suspended person or upon his exoneration" must be read together with the disciplinary provisions, so that one who is found guilty and penalized cannot claim the salary as if he had been cleared.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal of the lower court dated November 9, 1964, with costs against Avila.

Remember This

The single line to memorize: back salaries follow exoneration, not mere reinstatement. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between reinstatement after acquittal and reinstatement after a finding of guilt, and to test the reading of Section 260 of the Revised Administrative Code.