JOEL ALLIAN, PETITIONER, VS. THE CHAIRMAN & COMMISSIONERS, CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS.

Allian versus Civil Service Commission

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari and mandamus filed by Joel Allian against the Chairman and Commissioners of the Civil Service Commission. Allian asks the Supreme Court to reverse the Commission's resolution denying his claim for back salaries and other benefits for the period of his separation from the service, which the Reorganization Appeals Board had found to be "not in order." The case matters because it fixes the rule that an employee illegally separated in a government reorganization is reinstated as a matter of right and is entitled to full pay for the entire period of separation — not as charity, but under the law.

Procedural History

Allian first sought relief from the Reorganization Appeals Board, which found his separation "not in order" and directed that he be reappointed to his former position. That resolution became final and executory after fifteen days. When the Civil Service Commission refused to grant back salaries, Allian filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus directly with the Supreme Court. The Solicitor General, after reviewing the records, manifested that he was unable to sustain the position of the public respondents, who then filed their own comment. The Court treated the comment as the answer and resolved to grant the petition.

Facts

On February 12, 1988, Allian received written notice from the Civil Service Commission Chairman that, in the reorganization of the Commission under Section 3 of Executive Order No. 181 dated June 1, 1987, he was separated from the service effective February 1, 1988. He later learned that the ground was unauthorized leaves of absence, which he claimed had in fact been approved by his superiors. He filed a petition for reconsideration with the Reorganization Appeals Board.

On August 4, 1988, the Reorganization Appeals Board issued its resolution finding that his separation was "not in order" and that he should be reappointed to his former position as Personnel Specialist, without prejudice to any appropriate administrative disciplinary action. That resolution became final and executory after fifteen days. Allian then requested reappointment, but the Commission replied that he would have to undergo further screening and evaluation. He protested that he was neither a next-in-rank nor an applicant for the position, and reiterated his request, praying also for the benefits due him under the law.

On October 24, 1989, the Commission relented and issued a resolution appointing him to his former position as Personnel Specialist II. Because the resolution did not grant back salaries, Allian wrote the Commission invoking Section 20 of the Rules on Government Reorganization implementing Republic Act No. 6656, which entitles illegally separated employees to full pay for the period of separation. On January 5, 1990, the Commission issued its resolution denying his claim for back salaries. Hence, the petition.

Issues

• Whether or not Allian is entitled to full pay for the period of his illegal separation from the service.

Applicable Provisions

Section 9 of Republic Act No. 6656 provides:

Section 9. All officers and employees who are found by the Civil Service Commission to have been separated in violation of the provisions of this Act, shall be ordered reinstated or reappointed as the case may be without loss of seniority and shall be entitled to full pay for the period of separation.

This is the provision that directly grants Allian the back salaries he claims.

Item No. 4 of the fifth paragraph of Memorandum Circular No. 2, series of 1985, of the Civil Service Commission provides:

4. The agency should notify in writing the employee, who is absent (on vacation) without leave (AWOL) for thirty (30) days, to report within five (5) days from receipt of notice, otherwise he shall be dropped from the rolls.

This provision governs the procedure for dropping an employee for absence without leave, and the Court uses it to show that Allian was never validly dropped.

Ruling

The Court granted the petition. On the lone issue, it held that Allian is entitled to full pay for the period of his illegal separation under Section 9 of Republic Act No. 6656. The Commission's finding that Allian violated reasonable rules by going absent without leave is invalid, because he was never formally charged with that offense nor given a chance to defend himself. The Reorganization Appeals Board found that the records were bereft of any proof of a derogatory record attributable to his termination, and that even an employee absent without approved leave for one month may not be dismissed outright. The Court noted that no records showed Allian was notified to report for work as the circular requires, nor that he failed to file an application for any leave he took. To find him guilty of absence without leave without first hearing his side would be tantamount to convicting him of a violation of law without due process.

The Court rejected the Commission's justifications. Since the Reorganization Appeals Board found the dismissal "not in order," in effect unlawful, Allian was entitled to reinstatement as a matter of right, not out of charity or compassion. He may not be faulted for failing to render service during the period of his illegal dismissal, because the Commission illegally deprived him of his work. Since his dismissal was effected in violation of the law, he is entitled to the payment of his back salaries as provided in Section 9 of Republic Act No. 6656, as the Court had also held in the case of the customs employees improperly reorganized out of the service.

Doctrine

An officer or employee found to have been separated from the service in violation of Republic Act No. 6656 is entitled to reinstatement or reappointment as a matter of right, without loss of seniority, and to full pay for the period of separation. The employee need not have rendered service during that period, because it was the government that illegally deprived him of his work. An employee may not be dropped from the rolls for absence without leave unless he is first notified in writing to report and given a chance to be heard; dismissal without due process is invalid. Reinstatement is not an act of generosity or compassion but the enforcement of a legal right.

Disposition

The Court granted the petition and ordered the public respondents to pay Allian the salaries and other benefits legally due him from February 2, 1988 to October 30, 1989, a period of twenty-one months, with no costs.

Remember This

Memorize this line: an illegally separated employee is reinstated as a matter of right and is entitled to full pay for the period of separation under Section 9 of Republic Act No. 6656. Examiners use this case on back salaries after illegal dismissal in reorganization, and on the due process requirement before dropping an employee from the rolls for absence without leave.