[Digest] Caniete vs. Secretary of Education (2000)

CANIETE  vs. THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS [G.R. No. 140359. June 19, 2000]  KAPUNAN, J.:

·         Herman Caniete and Wilfredo Rosario are public school teachers at the Juan Sumulong HS QC. For being absent on 20 and 21 September 1990, they were charged by Secretary Isidro Cariño, then Secretary of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports, with alleged participation in the mass actions/strikes on said dates. Petitioners were placed under preventive suspension on 21 September 1990. --> eventually found guilty --> dismissed from service  --> MSPB REVERSED: Suspend only for 3m without pay -->CSC modified penalty: REPRIMAND ONLY --> found that petitioners were only guilty of being absent on 20 and 21 September 1990 without the necessary leave of absence, and not as charged by Secretary Cariño of participating in the mass actions/strikes on said dates.  -->They are automatically reinstated in the service without payment of back salaries.

·         Petitioners moved for a reconsideration of the CSC resolution insofar as it disallowed the payment of their back salaries. --> DENIED

ISSUE: WON PETS ARE ENTITLED TO BACK SALARIES UPON THEIR REINSTATEMENT (after they were found guilty only of violating reasonable office rules and regulations and penalized only with reprimand)? YES!

·         Citing  Gloria vs. CA - the public school teachers therein were either suspended or dismissed for allegedly participating in the strikes sometime in September and October 1990. They were eventually exonerated of said charge and found guilty only of violation of reasonable office rules and regulations by failing to file applications for leave of absence. Thus, the penalty of dismissal earlier imposed on them was reduced to reprimand and their reinstatement was ordered. Moreover, this Court affirmed the payment of back salaries of said teachers explaining that although "employees who are preventively suspended pending investigation are not entitled to the payment of their salaries even if they are exonerated, we do not agree with the government that they are not entitled to compensation for the period of their suspension pending appeal if eventually they are found innocent."

·         Thus, there are two kinds of preventive suspension of civil service employees who are charged with offenses punishable by removal or suspension: (1) preventive suspension pending investigation (§51) and (2) preventive suspension pending appeal if the penalty imposed by the disciplining authority is suspension or dismissal and, after review, the respondent is exonerated (§47[4]).

·         Employee who is placed under preventive suspension pending investigation is not entitled to compensation because such suspension "is not a penalty but only a means of enabling the disciplining authority to conduct an unhampered investigation."^[7] Upon the other hand, there is right to compensation for preventive suspension pending appeal if the employee is eventually exonerated. This is because "preventive suspension pending appeal is actually punitive although it is in effect subsequently considered illegal if respondent is exonerated and the administrative decision finding him guilty is reversed. Hence, he should be reinstated with full pay for the period of the suspension."

·         In Jacinto v. Court of Appeals, a public school teacher who was found guilty of violation of reasonable office rules and regulations for having been absent without leave and reprimanded was given back salaries after she was exonerated of the charge of having taken part in the strikes.

·         Given the substantial factual similarities of this case to Gloria, there is clearly no reason for this Court to rule against the payment of back salaries to herein petitioners.