G.R. No. 95832. August 10, 1992
MAYNARD R. PERALTA, PETITIONER, VS. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, RESPONDENT.
PADILLA, J.:
Petitioner was appointed Trade-Specialist II on 25 September 1989
in the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). His appointment was classified
as “Reinstatement/ Permanent”. Before said appointment, he was working at the Philippine Cotton
Corporation, a government-owned and controlled corporation under the Department
of Agriculture.
On 8 December 1989, petitioner received his initial salary,
covering the period from 25 September to 31 October 1989. Since he had no accumulated leave credits,
DTI deducted from his salary the amount corresponding to his absences during the
covered period, namely, 29 September 1989 and 20 October 1989, inclusive
of Saturdays and Sundays. More specifically, the dates of said absences for which salary
deductions were made, are as follows:
1.
29 September 1989 – Friday
2.
30 September 1989 – Saturday
3.
01 October 1989 – Sunday
4.
20 October 1989 – Friday
5. 21
October 1989 – Saturday
6. 22 October 1989 – Sunday
Petitioner sent a memorandum to Amando T. Alvis (Chief, General
Administrative Service) on 15 December 1989 inquiring as to the law on salary
deductions, if the employee has no leave credits.
Amando T. Alvis answered petitioner’s query in a memoÂrandum
dated 30 January 1990 citing Chapter 5.49 of the Handbook of Information on the
Philippine Civil Service which states that “when an employee is on leave without
pay on a day before or on a day immediately preceding a Saturday, Sunday or
Holiday, such Saturday, Sunday, or Holiday shall also be without pay (CSC, 2nd
Ind., February 12, 1965).”
Petitioner then sent a letter dated 20 February 1990 addressed to
Civil Service Commission (CSC) Chairman Patricia A. Sto. Tomas raising the
following question:
“Is an employee who was on leave of absence without pay on a
day before or on a day immeÂdiately preceding a Saturday, Sunday or Holiday,
also considered on leave of absence without pay on such Saturday, Sunday or
Holiday?”[1]
Petitioner in his said letter to the CSC Chairman argued that a
reading of the General Leave Law as contained in the Revised Administrative
Code, as well as the old Civil Service Law (Republic Act No. 2260), the Civil Service Decree
(Presidential Decree No. 807), and the Civil Service Rules and Regulations
fails to disclose a specific provision which supports the CSC rule at issue. That being the case, the petitioner
contended that he cannot be deprived of his pay or salary corresponding to the
intervening Saturdays, Sundays or Holidays (in the factual situation posed),
and that the withholding (or deduction) of the same is tantamount to a
deprivation of property without due process of law.
On 25 May 1990,
respondent Commission promulgated Resolution No. 90-497, ruling that the action
of the DTI in deducting from the salary of petitioner, a part thereof
corresponding to six (6) days (September 29, 30, October 1, 20, 21, 22, 1989)
is in order.[2]
The CSC stated that:
“In a 2nd Indorsement dated February 12, 1965 of this
Commission, which embodies the policy on leave of absence without pay incurred
on a Friday and a Monday, reads:
‘Mrs. Rosalinda Gonzales is not entitled to payment of salary
corresÂponding to January 23 and 24, 1965, Saturday and Sunday, respectively,
it appearing that she was present on Friday, January 22, 1965 but was on
leave without pay beginning January 25, the succeeding Monday. It is the view of this Office that an
employee who has no more leave credit in his favor is not entitled to the
payment of salary on Saturdays, Sundays or holidays unless such non-working
days occur within the period of service actually rendered.’ (Emphasis
supplied)
The rationale for the above ruling which
applies only to those employees who are being paid on monthly basis, rests on
the assumption that having been absent on either Monday or Friday, one who has
no leave credits, could not be favorably credited with intervening days had the
same been working days. Hence, the
above policy that for an employee on leave without pay to be entitled to salary
on Saturdays, Sundays or holidays, the same must occur between the dates where
the said employee actually renders service. To rule otherwise would allow an employee who is on leave of absent
(sic) without pay for a long period of time to be entitled to payment of his
salary corresponding to Saturdays, Sundays or holidays. It also discourages the employees who have exhausted
their leave credits from absenting themselves on a Friday or Monday in order to
have a prolonged weekend, resulting in the prejudice of the government and the
public in general.”[3]
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and in Resolution
No. 90-797, the respondent Commission denied said motion for lack of
merit. The respondent Commission in
explaining its action held:
“The Primer on the Civil Service dated February 21, 1978,
embodies the Civil Service Commission rulings to be observed whenever an
employee of the government who has no more leave credits, is absent on a Friday
and/or a Monday is enough basis for the deduction of his salaries corresponding
to the intervening Saturdays and Sundays. What the Commission perceived to be without basis is the demand of
Peralta for the payment of his salaries corresponding to Saturdays and Sundays
when he was in fact on leave of absence without pay on a Friday prior
to the said days. A reading of Republic
Act No. 2260 (sic) does not show that a government employee who is on leave of
absence without pay on a day before or immediately preceding Saturday, Sunday
or legal holiday is entitled to payment of his salary for said days. Further, a reading of Senate Journal No. 67
dated May 4, 1960 of House Bill No. 41 (Republic Act No. 2625) reveals that
while the law-excludes Saturdays, Sundays and holidays in the computation of
leave credits, it does not, however, include a case where the leave of absence
is without pay. Hence, applying the
principle of inclusio unius est exclusio alterius, the claim of Peralta
has no merit. Moreover, to take a
different posture would be in effect giving more premium to employees who are
frequently on leave of absence without pay, instead of discouraging them from
incurring further absence without pay.”[4]
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration having been denied,
petitioner filed the present petition.
What is primarily questioned by the petitioner is the validity of
the respondent Commission’s policy mandating salary deductions corresponding to
the intervening Saturdays, Sundays or Holidays where an employee without leave
credits was absent on the immediately preceding working day.
During the pendency of this petition, the respondent Commission
promulgated Resolution No. 91-540 dated 23 April 1991 amending the questioned
policy, considering that employees paid on a monthly basis are not required to
work on Saturdays, Sundays or Holidays. In said amendatory Resolution, the respondent Commission resolved
“to adopt the Policy that when an employee, regardless of whether he has
leave credits or not, is absent without pay on day immediately preceding or
succeeding Saturday, Sunday or holiday, he shall not be considered absent on
those days.” Memorandum Circular No. 16 Series of 1991 dated 26 April
1991, was also issued by CSC Chairman Sto. Tomas adopting and promulgating the
new policy and directing the Heads of Departments, Bureaus and Agencies in the
national and local governments, including government-owned or controlled
corporations with original charters, to oversee the strict implementation of
the circular.
Because of these developments, it would seem at first blush that
this petition has become moot and academic since the very CSC policy being
questioned has already been amended and, in effect, Resolutions No. 90-497 and
90-797, subject of this petition for certiorari, have already been set
aside and superseded. But the
issue of whether or not the policy
that had been adopted and in force
since 1965 is valid or not, remains
unresolved. Thus, for reasons of
public interest and public policy, it is the duty of the Court to make a formal
ruling on the validity or invalidity of such questioned policy.
The Civil Service Act of 1959 (R.A. No. 2260) conferred upon the
Commissioner of Civil Service the following powers and duties:
“Sec. 16 (e) with the
approval by the President to prescribe, amend and enforce suitable rules and
regulations for carrying into effect the Provisions of this Civil Service Law,
and the rules prescribed pursuant to the provisions of this law shall become
effective thirty days after publication in the Official Gazette;
x x x x x
x
(k) To perform other functions that properly belong to a central
personnel agency.”[5]
Pursuant to the foregoing provisions, the Commission Promulgated
the herein challenged policy. Said
policy was embodied in a 2nd Indorsement dated 12 February 1965 of the
respondent Commission involving the case of a Mrs. Rosalinda Gonzales. The respondent Commission ruled that an
employee who has no leave credits in his favor is not entitled to the payment
of salary on Saturdays, Sundays or Holidays unless such non-working days occur
within the period of service actually rendered. The same policy is reiterated in the Handbook of Information on
the Philippine Civil Service.[6]
Chapter Five on leave of absence provides that:
“5.51 When intervening Saturday, Sunday or holiday considered
as leave without pay – when an employee is on leave without pay on a day before
or on a day immediately preceding a Saturday, Sunday or holiday, such Saturday,
Sunday or holiday shall also be without pay. (CSC, 2nd Ind., Feb. 12, 1965).”
It is likewise illustrated in the Primer on the Civil Service[7]
in the section referring to Questions and Answers on Leave of Absences, which
states the following:
“27. How is leave of
an employee who has no more leave credits computed if:
(1) he is absent on a Friday and the
following Monday?
(2) if he is absent on Friday but reports to
work the following Monday?
(3) if he is absent on a Monday but present
the preceding Friday?
-(1) He is considered on leave without pay for
4 days covering Friday to Monday;
-(2) He is considered on leave without pay for
3 days from Friday to Sunday;
-(3) He is considered on leave without pay for
3 days from Saturday to Monday.”
When an administrative or executive agency renders an opinion or
issues a statement of policy, it merely interprets a pre-existing law; and the
administrative interÂpretation of the law is at best advisory, for it is the
courts that finally determine what the law means.[8]
It has also been held that interpretative regulations need not be published.[9]
In promulgating as early as 12 February 1965 the questioned
policy, the Civil Service Commission interpreted the provisions of Republic Act
No. 265 (which took effect on 17 June 1960) amending the Revised Administrative
Code, and which stated as follows:
“SECTION 1. Sections
two hundred eighty-four and two hundred eighty-five-A of the AdminisÂtrative
Code, as amended, are further amended to read as follows:
‘SEC. 284. After at least
six months’ continues (sic) faithful, and satisfactory service, the President
or proper head of department, or the chief of office in the case of municipal
employees may, in his discretion, grant to an employee or laborer, whether
permanent or, temporary, of the national government, the provincial government,
the government of a chartered city, of a municipality, of a municipal district
or of government-owned or controlled corporations other than those mentioned in
Section two hundred sixty-eight, two-hundred seventy-one and two hundred
seventy-four hereof, fifteen days vacation leave of absence with full pay,
exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, for each calendar year of
service.
‘SEC. 285-A. In addition to
the vacation leave provided in the two preceding sections each employee or
laborer, whether permanent or temporary, of the national government, the proÂvincial
government, the government of a chartered city, of a municipality or municipal
district in any regularly and specially organized province, other than those
mentioned in Section two hundred sixty-eight, two hundred seventy-one and two
hundred seventy-four hereof, shall be entitled to fifteen days of sick leave
for each year of service with full pay, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays and
holidays: Provided, That such sick
leave will be granted by the President, Head of Department or independent
office concerned, or the chief of office in case of municipal employees, only
on account of sickness on the part of the employee or laborer concerned or of
any member of his immediate family.'”
The Civil Service Commission in its here questioned Resolution
No. 90-797 construed R.A. 2625 as referring only to government employees who
have earned leave credits against which their absences may be charged with pay,
as its letters speak only of leaves of absence with full pay. The respondent Commission ruled that a
reading of R.A. 2625 does not show that a government employee who is on leave
of absence without pay on a day before or immediately preceding a
Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday is entitled to payment of his salary for said
days.
Administrative construction, if we may repeat, is not necessarily
binding upon the courts. Action of an
adminisÂtrative agency may be disturbed or set aside by the judicial department
if there is an error of law, or, abuse of power or lack of jurisdiction or
grave abuse of discretion clearly conflicting with either the letter or the
spirit of a legislative enactment.[10]
We find this petition to be impressed with merit.
As held in Hidalgo vs. Hidalgo:[11]
“….where the true intent of the law is clear that calls for
the application of the cardinal rule of statutory construction that such intent
or spirit must prevail over the letter thereof, for whatever is within the
spirit of a statute is within the statute, since adherence to the letter would
result in absurdity, injustice and contradictions and would defeat the plain
and vital purpose of the statute.”
The intention of the legislature in the enactment of R.A. 2625
may be gleaned from, among others, the sponsorship speech of Senator Arturo M.
Tolentino during the second reading of House Bill No. 41 (which became R.A.
2625). He said:
“The law actually provides for sick leave and vacation leave
of 15 days each year of service to be with full pay. But under the present law, in computing these periods of leaves,
Saturday. Sunday and holidays are
included in the computaÂtion so that if an employee should become sick and
absent himself on a Friday and then he reports for work on a Tuesday, in the
computation of the leave the Saturday and Sunday will be included, so that he
will be considered as having had a leave of Friday, Saturday, Sunday and
Monday, or four days.
“The purpose of the present bill is to exclude from the
computation of the leave those days, Saturdays and Sundays, as well as holidays,
because actually the employee is entitled not to go to office during those
days. And it is unfair and unjust to
him that those days should be counted in the computation of leaves.”[12]
With this in mind, the construction by the respondent Commission
of R.A. 2625 is not in accordance with the legislative intent. R.A. 2625 specifically provides that
government employees are entitled to fifteen (15) days vacation leave of
absence with full pay and fifteen (15) days sick leave with full pay, exclusive
of Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays in
both cases. Thus, the law
speaks of the granting of a right and the law does not provide for a
distinction between those who have accumulated leave credits and those who have
exhausted their leave credits in order to enjoy such right. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos
distinguere debemus. The fact
remains that government employees, whether or not they have accumulated leave
credits, are not required by law to work on Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays and
thus they can not be declared absent on such non-working days. They cannot be or are not considered absent
on non-working days; they cannot and should not be deprived of their salary
corresponding to said non-working days just because they were absent without
pay on the day immediately prior to, or after said non-working days. A different rule would constitute a
deprivation of property without due process.
Furthermore, before their amendment by R.A. 2625, Sections 284
and 285-A of the Revised Administrative Code applied to all government
employees without any distinction. It
follows that the effect of the amendment similarly applies to all employees
enumerated in Sections 284 and 285-A, whether or not they have accumulated
leave credits.
As the questioned CSC policy is here declared invalid, we are
next confronted with the question of what effect such invalidity will
have. Will all government employees on
a monthly salary basis, deprived of their salaries corresÂponding to Saturdays,
Sundays or legal holidays (as herein petitioner was so deprived) since 12 February
1965, be entitled to recover the amounts corresponding to such non-working
days?
The general rule vis-a-vis legislation is that an
unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties;
it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as
inoperative as though it had never been passed.[13]
But, as held in Chicot
County Drainage District vs. Baxter State Bank:[14]
“x x x. It is quite
clear, however, that such broad statements as to the effect of a determination
of unconstitutionality must be taken with qualifications. The actual existence of a statute, prior to
such, determination is an operative fact and may have consequences which cannot
always be ignored. The past cannot
always be erased by a new judicial declaration. The effect of the subsequent ruling as to invalidity may have to
be considered in various aspects – with respect to particular relations,
individual and corporate; and particular conduct, private and official.”
To allow all the affected government employees, similarly
situated as petitioner herein, to claim their deducted salaries resulting from
the past enforcement of the herein invalidated CSC policy, would cause quite a
heavy financial burden on the national and local governments considering the
length of time that such policy has been effective. Also, administrative and practical considerations must be taken
into account if this ruling will have a strict restrospective application. The Court, in this connection, calls upon
the respondent Commission and the Congress of the Philippines, if necessary, to
handle this problem with justice and equity to all affected government
employees.
It must be pointed out, however, that after CSC Memorandum
Circular No. 16 Series of 1991 – amending the herein invalidated policy – was
promulgated on 26 April 1991, deductions from salaries made after said date in
contravention of the new CSC policy must be restored to the government
employees concerned.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED, CSC Resolutions No.
90-497 and 90-797 are declared NULL and VOID. The respondent Commission is directed to take the appropriate action so
that petitioner shall be paid the amounts previously but unlawfully deducted
from his monthly salary as above indicated. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Feliciano, Bidin,
Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, and Bellosillo, JJ., concur.
[1]
Rollo, p. 32.
[2]
Rollo, p. 37.
[3]
Rollo, pp. 36-37.
[4]
Rollo, pp. 46-47.
[5]
P.D. No. 807, issued on 6 October 1975, in Article V, Section 9, specifically
provides for the following powers and functions of the Civil Service
Commission:
“Sec. 9(b) Prescribe, amend
and enforce suitable rules and regulations for carrying into effect the
provisions of this Decree. These rules and regulations shall become effective
thirty days after publication in the Official Gazette or in any newspaper of
general circulation;
(c) Promulgate policies, standards
and guidelines for the Civil Service and adopt plans and programs to promote
economical, efficient and effective personnel administration in the government;
and prescribe all forms for publications, examinations, appointments, reports,
records and such other forms as may be required under this Decree.”
[6]
Published by the Personnel Officers Association of the Philippines, Inc. (POAP)
and the Law Center of the University of the Philippines System, Revised
Edition, 1978
[7]
February 21, 1978
[8]
Victorias Milling Co., Inc. vs. Social Security Commission, 114 Phil.
555 (1962)
[9]
Tañada vs. Tuvera, No. L-63915, December 29, 1986, 146 SCRA 446
[10]
Sagun vs. PHHC, G.R. NO. L-44738, June 22, 1988, 162 SCRA 411
[11]
G.R. No. L-25326, May 29, 1970, 33 SCRA 105
[12]
Senate Journal No. 67, Vol. III, May 4, 1960, H. No. 41
[13]
Municipality of Malabang, etc., et al. vs. Benito, et al., G.R. No.
L-28113, March 28, 1969, 27 SCRA 533 citing Norton vs. Shelby Count, 118
U.S. 425 (1886)
[14]
308 U.S. 371 (1940) cited in Mun. of Malabang vs. Benito, supra.