12 Bunsay V CSC

11/18/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 530
68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bunsay vs. Civil Service Commission
*
G.R. No. 153188. August 14, 2007.
JERRYBELLE L. BUNSAY, PRUDENCIO L. PERONO,

MA. CORAZON NINI C. GAMO, MARY JOY S. ELERIO,
JENELYN A. ALAYON, GENALYN DIANA D. MATTUS,
JACQUELINE O. JERMEO, DANTE RAMOS, VIRGILIO
CORPUS, MELISSA S. GEVA, EDGARDO S. PAJARO,
ANALIE G. SALUTA, EDWIN D. AMAGO, ELVIRA A.
LEBRILLO, ARC R. CATOLICO,** EPHRAIM VERGARA,
RICHIE ALVAREZ, petitioners, vs. CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION and
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
** The caption of the Petition for Review filed with the Court named
only two (2) petitioners. The other petitioners were not named in the body
of the petition. However, the Verification and Certification attached to the
Petition indicate that there are fifteen (15) other petitioners, namely: MA.
CORAZON NINI C. GAMO, MARY JOY S. ELERIO, JENELYN A.
ALAYON, GENALYN DIANA D. MATTUS, JACQUELINE O. JERMEO,
DANTE RAMOS, VIRGILIO CORPUZ, MELISSA S. GEVA, EDGARDO S.
PAJARO,
69
VOL. 530, AUGUST 14, 2007 69

***
CITY OF BACOLOD, respondents.
Civil Procedure; Cases should be determined on the merits

after giving full opportunity to all parties for the ventilation of
their causes and defenses rather than on technicality or some
procedural imperfections.—Judicial policy dictates that courts
ensure the full adjudication of the merits of an appeal. Cases
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015fcfd2c4bd44ab2544003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/16
should be determined on the merits, after giving full opportunity

to all parties for the ventilation of their causes and defenses,
rather than on technicality or some procedural imperfections. As
the Court expounded in Aguam v. Court of Appeals, 332 SCRA
784 (2000), it is more prudent for a court to excuse a technical
lapse and afford the parties a review of the case on appeal to
attain the ends of justice.
Civil Service Law; Backwages; Backwages are due said
employees provided that their reinstatement is based on an express
finding that they did not commit the imputed offense and that
their dismissal or suspension was illegal.—The rules on payment
of backwages to employees who are reinstated after having been
wrongfully dismissed or suspended are clear-cut. Backwages are
due said employees, provided that their reinstatement is based on
an express finding that they did not commit the imputed offense,
and that their dismissal or suspension was illegal. The amount of
backwages that may be awarded to them shall be based on their
salaries accruing from the time of their dismissal until their
actual reinstatement, for a period not exceeding five years. It need
not depend on actual services rendered, for they are excused for
their inability to work during the period of their illegal dismissal
or suspension. In short, they are not subject to the policy of “no
work, no pay,” for they were unlawfully prevented from rendering
work.
Same; To be entitled to initial compensation, said appointees
must prove that they were issued appointments and have assumed
the position to which they were appointed.—To be entitled to
initial compensation, said appointees must prove that they were
issued
_______________
ANALIE G. SALUTA, EDWIN D. AMAGO, ELVIRA A. LEBRILLO, ARC R.

CATOLICO, EPHRAIM VERGARA, and RICHIE ALVAREZ.
*** The Court of Appeals is named as respondent. The same should be deleted
as it is hereby deleted from the title of the petition, in accordance with Section 4,
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
70
appointments and have assumed the position to which they were

appointed. The best evidence of this would be the copies of their
appointments duly issued in accordance with Section 4, Rule IV of
the CSC Omnibus Rules on Appointments and other Personnel
Actions (Omnibus Rules on Appointment) and transmitted to the
CSC for attestation and the certificates of their assumption of
office and their daily time records or service records.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the resolutions of the

Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Atotubo, Fernandez and Galunan Law Offices for
petitioners.
The City Legal Officer for the City of Bacolod.
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
Before the Court is a Petition for Review 1

on Certiorari
assailing the February 22, 2002 Resolution of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 69134, dismissing
petitioners’ appeal from Resolution No. 02-0016 dated
January 3, 2002 of public respondent2 Civil Service
Commission (CSC); and the CA Resolution dated April 16,
2002, denying petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration.
3
The antecedent facts are as stated by the CSC.
Petitioners are among the 59 employees whose
promotional appointments to various positions in the local
government of Bacolod City were initially
4
disapproved by
the CSC-Field Office in Bacolod City and the CSC Regional
Office in Iloilo
_______________
1 Penned by Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr., with Associate

Justices Conchita Carpio-Morales (now Member of this Court) and Sergio
L. Pestaño, concurring; CA Rollo, p. 132.
2 Id., at p. 156.
3 Id., at pp. 21-38.
4 Id., at p. 99.
71
VOL. 530, AUGUST 14, 2007 71

5
City. On appeal, the CSC upheld the validity of their
promotional appointments in Resolutions No. 01-0414, No.
6
6
01-0415 and No. 01-0416, all dated February 12, 2001.
These resolutions are not in dispute.
However, as said Resolutions did not provide
7
for
payment of backwages to the 59 appointees,8
22 of them
filed with the CSC a request for back pay. Their request
9
was denied by the CSC in Resolution No. 01-0872 dated
May 3, 2001, thus:
“WHEREFORE, the request of Arsenio U. Selomandin, Jr.,

Jerrybelle L. Bunsay, Prudencio L. Perono, Richie A. Alvarez,
Nini C. Gamo, Elmer A. Alegada, May Joy S. Elerio, Jenelyn A.
Alayon, Genalyn Diana D. Mattus, Jacqueline O. Jermeo, Ariel B.
Marapo, Dante C. Ramos, Melissa S. Geva, Glenda R. Espuerta,
Isaac L. Tipsay, Jr., Leonora D. Diaz, Jeah A. Oppura, Edgardo S.
Pajaro, Analie G. 10Saluta, Virgilio U. Corpus and Edwin D. Amago
is hereby denied.”
With the exception of Ariel B. Marapo, the above-

mentioned appointees filed a Motion for Reconsideration
and
_______________
5 Id.
6 Id., at pp. 105-130.
7 Namely, Arsenio U. Selomandin, Jr., Jerrybelle L. Bunsay, Prudencio
L. Perono, Richie A. Alvarez, Nini C. Gamo, Elmer A. Alegada, Mary Joy
S. Elerio, Jenelyn A. Alayon, Genalyn Diana D. Mattus, Joemarie
Lopez, Jacqueline O. Jermeo, Ariel B. Marapo, Dante C. Ramos, Melissa
S. Geva, Glenda R. Espuerta, Isaac L. Tipsay, Jr., Leonora D. Diaz, Jeah
A. Oppura, Edgardo S. Pajaro, Analie G. Saluta, Virgilio U. Corpus and
Edwin D. Amago; id., at p. 146.
8 CSC Resolution, id., at p. 146.
9 For some reason, Joemarie Lopez, who was among the 22 employees
who requested backpay, was not mentioned in the aforementioned
dispositive portion of Resolution No. 01-0872. However, the Court notes
that in the dispositive portion of the subsequent Resolution No. 02-0016 of
the CSC, Joemarie Lopez was among those whose claims for back pay
were granted.
10 Id., at p. 148.
72

were joined by Arc Catolico,

11
Amy Guanzon, Elvira Lebrillo,
and Ephraim Vergara, who were also parties to the appeal
with the CSC regarding the approval of their promotional

appointments. The CSC partially granted the Motion for
Reconsideration in Resolution No. 02-0016 dated January
3, 2002, to wit:
“WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is hereby

GRANTED IN PART. Accordingly, Civil Service Commission
Resolution No. 01-0872 dated May 3, 2001 is hereby modified to
the follow-ing extent:
1. Alegada, Espuerta, Tipsay, Jr., Diaz, Guanzon and

Oppura are entitled to receive backwages from the date of
the issuance of their appointments until the final approval
thereof by the Commission;
2. Selomandin, Jr., Bunsay, Lopez, Geva, Vergara, Catolico
and Saluta are entitled to receive backwages on the basis
of the Daily Time Record presented;
3. Since there was no evidence submitted to prove that
Perono, Alvarez, Gamo, Elerio, Mattus, Jermeo, Pajaro
and Ramos are entitled to receive backwages, the request
is denied;
4. The backwages of Alayon, Amago and Lebrillo for the
determined period were already received by them; and
5. The right of Corpuz to claim 12
backwages cannot be
ascertained for lack of evidence.”
13
Herein petitioners are the 17 employees whose claims for
backwages were partly or wholly denied. They filed with
the CA a Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of
Court
_______________
11 CSC Resolution, id., at p. 21.

12 Id., at pp. 37-38.
13 Eight did not appeal from Resolution No. 02-0016 namely, Arsenio U.
Selomandin and Joemarie Lopez, whose claims for back-wages were partly
granted, and Elmer Alegada, Glenda R. Espuerta, Isaac L. Tipsay, Jr.,
Leonora D. Diaz, Amy Guanzon and Jeah A. Oppura, whose claims were
granted.
73
VOL. 530, AUGUST 14, 2007 73

but their petition was dismissed in the February 22, 2002

CA Resolution assailed herein, which states:
“Upon a perusal of the present petition, We note that the same

suffers from the following infirmities, to wit:
1. Copy of CSC Resolution No. 01-0872 dated May 3, 2001 as

well as the copy of the motion for reconsideration thereof
are nowhere appended thereto; (Sec. 6, par. (c), Rule 43 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended); and
2. Absence of the required explanation on why personal
service upon the respondents was not resorted to pursuant
to Sec. 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as
amended. Strict compliance with this rule is mandated.
(Vide: Solar Team Entertainment, Inc. vs. Ricafort, 293
SCRA 661);
and for which, We hereby RESOLVED to DISMISS this

petition outright. 14
SO ORDERED.”
15
They filed a Motion 16for Reconsideration and supplied the
required documents; still, the CA denied 17their motion in
the questioned Resolution of April 16, 2002.
Petitioners took the present recourse on the following
grounds:
I.
The Court of Appeals denied justice to petitioners and gravely

abused its discretion when it dismissed petitioners’ appeal based
on minor and harmless technical grounds, thereby denying them
the right and opportunity to have their case determined on the
merits free from constraints of technicalities.
_______________
14 Id., at p. 132.
15 Id., at p. 133.
16 Certified true copy of CSC Resolution No. 010872 (Annex “A”) and
Affidavit of Service and Written Explanation of Mode of Service (Annex
“B”), id., at pp. 142-143.
17 Id., at p. 156.
74

II.
The Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in not passing

upon the merits of the petition for review thereby denying
petitioners of just and valid relief and in hypothetically affirming
the NO WORK NO PAY principle adopted by Respondent
Commission which served as a basis of the latter in granting of
different reliefs to petitioners which is not only discriminatory but
likewise violative18 of the Constitutional guarantee of equal
protection of laws.
19
The City of Bacolod filed a Manifestation with the Court
stating that it is unable to prepare a memorandum for lack
of sufficient knowledge of the facts and issues of the case.
Public respondent CSC, through
20
the Office of the
21
Solicitor
General, filed its Comment and Memorandum.
The petition is meritorious.
Judicial policy dictates that courts ensure the full
adjudication of the merits of an appeal. Cases should be
determined on the merits, after giving full opportunity to
all parties for the ventilation of their causes and defenses,
rather than 22 on technicality or some procedural
imperfections.
23
As the Court expounded in Aguam v. Court
of Appeals, it is more prudent for a court to excuse a
technical lapse and afford the parties a review of the case
on appeal to attain the ends of justice.
Petitioners are deserving of such indulgence. On motion
for reconsideration, they supplied the deficiencies of their
petition and offered a plausible explanation for their earlier
lapse. Their effort constituted substantial compliance with
the requirement that relevant or pertinent documents be
submitted along with the petition, and called for the
relaxation of proce-
_______________
18 Petition, Rollo, p. 25.

19 Id., at p. 168.
20 Id., at p. 114.
21 Id., at p. 144.
22 Jaro v. Court of Appeals, 427 Phil. 532, 548; 377 SCRA 282, 298
(2002).
23 388 Phil. 587, 594; 332 SCRA 784, 790 (2000).
75
VOL. 530, AUGUST 14, 2007 75

24
24
dural rules; more so when they have already prevailed in
the main case before public respondent, which approved
their promotional appointments. To rebuff their claim for
back-wages on a technicality would be to take with the left
hand what the right hand25has given. In Constantino-David
v. Pangandaman-Gania, the respondent’s tardy and
deficient appeal was given due course to afford her full
redress from her wrongful dismissal and to serve the
broader interests of justice.
The CA in the instant case would have served the ends
of justice had it reinstated petitioners’ appeal and resolved
the petition on the merits. In dismissing the petition, the
CA committed a grave reversible error.
The principal issue that remains unanswered is whether
petitioners are entitled to payment of backwages. If in the
affirmative, the next question is: what is the exact amount
that each of the petitioners is entitled to? To resolve the
latter question will require assessment of the evidence
presented before the CSC; or, if necessary, the reception of
further evidence before the CA which is within its
competence under Section 9, second part26 of paragraph (3) of
Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended.
_______________
24 Padilla, Jr. v. Alipio, G.R. No. 156800, November 25, 2004, 444
SCRA 322, 327; Floren Hotel v. National Labor Relations Commission,
G.R. No. 155264, May 6, 2005, 458 SCRA 128, 142; Caingat v. National
Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 154308, March 10, 2005, 453 SCRA
142, 147; Serrano v. Galant Maritime Services, Inc., G.R. No. 151833,
August 7, 2003, 455 SCRA 992, 998.
25 456 Phil. 273; 409 SCRA 80 (2003).
26 Section 9. Jurisdiction.—x x x (3) x x x The Court of Appeals shall
have the power to try cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence and
perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases
falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction, including the
power to grant and conduct new trials or further proceedings. Trials or
hearings in the Court of appeals must be continuous and must be
completed within three (3) months, unless extended by the Chief Justice.
(Emphasis supplied)
76

Instead of outrightly remanding the case to the CA for the

determination of the factual questions to avert further
delay as well as for the guidance of the parties and the CA,
the Court will resolve the principal issue, as it involves a
pure question of law.
When public respondent first denied the claims for back-
wages of all the 22 appointees, including petitioners, it
stringently applied the policy of “no work, no pay,” thus:
“The Commission finds no legal basis to grant the request for back
salaries. It is a well-settled principle that compensation is paid
only for services actually or constructively rendered. Considering
that no evidence was submitted by Selomandin, Jr., et al.,
Vergara, et al., and Maculada, et al., that they rendered service to
the government from the time the appointments were issued to
them until approval of said appointments, granting them
backwages would in effect be unjustly enriching them at the
expense of taxpayer’s money.
It should be noted that an appointee is entitled to receive
salaries for the position to which he was appointed to without
awaiting for the approval of said appointment by the Commission
provided he assumed the duties of said position (CSC
Memorandum Circular No. 40, Series of 1998). In the case at bar,
while Selomandin, et al. were appointed by former Mayor
Leonardia, they did not actually assume and discharge the
functions of their respective offices. The general proposition is
that a public official is not entitled to any compensation if
27
he has
not rendered any service. As you work, so shall you earn.”
It reconsidered the foregoing resolution only in favor of

those appointees who presented evidence that they
rendered actual service pending their appeal.
Petitioners impugn the foregoing ruling of public
respondent on the ground that it violates the equal
protection clause.
28
They contend that the ruling in Cristobal
v. Melchor that an employee wrongfully dismissed should
not be subject
_______________
27 CSC Resolution, CA Rollo, pp. 147-148.

28 G.R. No. L-43203, December 29, 1980, 101 SCRA 857, 863.
77
VOL. 530, AUGUST 14, 2007 77

to the policy of “no work, no pay” be applied also to them,

for they were prevented from reporting for work when their
appointments were disapproved. Hence, as their inability

to work was due to a factor beyond their control, they
should be entitled to backwages even without evidence that
they rendered service from the time their appointments
were disapproved by the CSC-Field Office to 29the time
public respondent set aside the disapproval. In the
alternative, they argue that if payment of backwages must
be based on evidence, the service records they presented
should be considered sufficient already, for contrary to the
finding of public respondent, there are actually no gaps in
their periods of service, because the effectivity of their
appointments were made 30
to retroact to the date of issuance
of those appointments.
Petitioners are mistaken.
The rules on payment of backwages to employees who
are reinstated after having been wrongfully dismissed or
suspended are clear-cut. Backwages are due said
employees, provided that their reinstatement is based on
an express finding that they did not commit the imputed 31
offense, and that their dismissal or suspension was illegal.
The amount of backwages that may be awarded to them
shall be based on their salaries accruing from the time of
their dismissal until their actual 32
reinstatement, for a
period not exceeding five years. It need not depend on
actual services rendered, for
_______________
29 Petition, Rollo, pp 29-34.

30 Id., at pp. 35-36.
31 Civil Service Commission v. Gentallan, G.R. No. 152833, May 9,
2005, 458 SCRA 278, 286; Philippine Coconut Authority v. Garrido, 424
Phil. 904, 910; 374 SCRA 154, 160 (2002); Caniete v. Secretary of
Education, Culture and Sports, 389 Phil. 364, 370; 333 SCRA 849, 854
(2000); Salvador v. Court of Appeals, 387 Phil. 453, 464; 331 SCRA 438,
446 (2000);
32 Marohombsar v. Court of Appeals, 382 Phil. 825, 836; 326 SCRA 62,
73-74 (2000); Caniete v. Secretary of Education, supra note 31, at 368; p.
853.
78

they are excused for their inability to work 33 during the

period of their illegal dismissal or suspension. In short,
they are not subject to the policy of “no work, no pay,”

34
for
they were unlawfully prevented from rendering work.
A different set of rules governs payment of backwages to
appointees awaiting approval of their appointment.
Section 10, Rule V of the CSC Omnibus Rules (Omnibus 35
Rules) Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292,
provides:
“Section 10. An appointment issued in accordance with pertinent

laws and rules shall take effect immediately upon its issuance by
the appointing authority, and if the appointee has assumed
the duties of the position, he shall be entitled to receive his
salary at once without awaiting the approval of his
appointment by the Commission. In no case shall an
appointment take effect earlier than the date of its issuance.”
Thus, to be entitled to initial compensation, said appointees

must prove that they were issued appointments and36have
assumed the position to which they were appointed. The
best evidence of this would be the copies of their 37
appointments duly issued in accordance with Section 4,
Rule IV of the CSC Omnibus Rules on Appointments and
other Personnel Actions (Omnibus Rules on Appointment)
and transmitted to the CSC
_______________
33 Civil Service Commission v. Gentallan, supra note 31.

34 Constantino-David v. Pangandaman-Gania, supra note 25, at 299; p.
97.
35 ADMINISTRATIVE CODE of 1987, effective November 23, 1989.
36 Civil Service Commission v. Joson, G.R. No. 154674, May 27, 2004,
429 SCRA 773, 787.
37 Sec. 4. No official or employee shall be required to assume duty
without being furnished with a copy of his appointment after it is issued
by the appointing authority. The appointee shall acknowledge receipt of
the appointment by signing on the duplicate and other copies of said
appointment.
79
VOL. 530, AUGUST 14, 2007 79

38
for attestation and the certificates of their assumption of
office and their daily time records or service records.
In case of disapproval of their appointments, payment of
their compensation is subject to these further provisions of
Rule VI of the Omnibus Rules on Appointment:
“Section 3. When an appointment is disapproved, the services of

the appointee shall be immediately terminated, unless a motion
for reconsideration or appeal is seasonably filed.
Services rendered by a person for the duration of his
disapproved appointment shall not be credited as government
service for whatever purpose.
If the appointment was disapproved on grounds which
do not constitute violation of civil service law, such as
failure of the appointee to meet the Qualification
Standards (QS) prescribed for the position, the same is
considered effective until disapproved by the Commission
or any of its regional or field offices. The appointee is
meanwhile entitled to payment of salaries from the
government.
If a motion for reconsideration or an appeal from the
disapproval is seasonably filed with the proper office, the
appointment is still considered to be effective. The
disapproval becomes final only after the same is affirmed
by the Commission.” (Emphasis added)
It is the second set of rules, specifically paragraphs 3 and 4,

Section 3, Rule VI of the Omnibus Rules on Appointment,
which apply to petitioners. Their employment was not
terminated; their appointments were merely disapproved
by the CSC-Field Office. Even then, their appointments
remained effective pending appeal with the CSC. They
should therefore be entitled to payment of salaries accruing
from the date of issuance of their appointments to the date
of the disapproval thereof; and, as they had filed a timely
motion for reconsideration or appeal, from the date of
initial disapproval of their
_______________
38 Cabalitan v. Department of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 162805,

January 23, 2006, 479 SCRA 452, 460.
80

appointments to the date that these are finally disapproved

or approved by the CSC, provided that petitioners are able
to establish the conditions set forth in Section 10, Rule V of
the Omnibus Rules; and additionally, they can show that
they actually discharged the functions of their office while

awaiting39
the outcome of their motion for reconsideration or
appeal. In short, given that their appointments remained
effective despite initial disapproval by the CSC Regional
Office, there was no obstacle to petitioners continuing to
render public service; thus, there is no reason for them not
to be subject to the policy of “no work, no pay.”
The foregoing separate rules do not necessarily lead to
an uneven treatment of claimants for backwages. There are
material differences in their circumstances which
necessitate the operation of distinct rules. For one who is
prevented from rendering work, it would be absurd to
demand evidence of actual services rendered. For one who
is not prevented from performing work, it is only fair to
require such evidence.
The equal protection clause does not demand absolute
equality among persons; it merely requires that all persons
under like circumstances and conditions be treated 40 alike,
both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced.
This brings the Court to the corollary question: whether
petitioners sufficiently proved that they rendered work as
would entitle them to back pay. This question being purely
evidentiary, the findings of41 public respondent on the
matter are ordinarily binding.
It is the finding of public respondent that petitioners
Bunsay, Geva, Catolico, Vergara, and Saluta are entitled to
back-
_______________
39 Civil Service Commission v. Joson, supra note 36.

40 Fariñas v. Executive Secretary, 463 Phil. 179, 206; 417 SCRA 503,
520-526 (2003); Executive Secretary v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131719,
May 25, 2004, 429 SCRA 81, 100.
41 Gonzales v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 156253, June 15,
2006, 490 SCRA 741, 747.
81
VOL. 530, AUGUST 14, 2007 81

wages but only for the number of days that they actually
rendered work prior to the February 12, 2001 approval of
their appointments,
42
as indicated in their daily time records
(DTR). As for Alayon, Amago, and Lebrillo, public
respondent found them also entitled to back pay based on
the number of days indicated in the DTR, but held that the
43
43
latter already received payment therefor. As to the claims
of Perono, Alvarez, Gamo, Elerio, Mattus, Jermeo, Pajaro.
Ramos and Corpus, 44
public respondent denied the same for
lack of evidence.
On appeal to the CA, however, it would appear that,
with the exception of petitioners Alvarez and Ramos,
petitioners submitted
45
certified true copies of personnel
service records issued by their respective offices, which
may indicate that they rendered work continuously from
the issuance of their appointments to the approval thereof
on February 12, 2001.
As it came to pass, the CA was not able to consider the
foregoing evidence for it merely dismissed the petition
outright.
The Court is also tempted 46to disregard such evidence,
belatedly submitted as it was. However, the Court is set
on giving true meaning to the policy of “no work, no pay.” It
cannot now simply ignore the service records of petitioners,
which may show that these rank and file employees
actually performed work during the periods in question,
and should somehow be compensated for their efforts. To
recall our
47
ruling in Constantino-David v. Pangandaman-
Gania,
“To prevent respondent from claiming backwages would leave

incomplete the redress of the illegal dismissal that had been done
to
_______________
42 CSC Resolution, CA Rollo, pp. 35-36.

43 Id., at p. 37.
44 Id., at pp. 36-37.
45 All marked Annex “B-3,” id., at pp. 84-98.
46 Binay v. Odeña, G.R. No. 163683, June 08, 2007, 524 SCRA 248.
47 Supra note 25.
82

her and amo unt to endorsing the wrongful refusal of her

employer or whoever was accountable to reinstate her. A too-rigid
application of the pertinent provisions of the Revised Uniform
Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service as well as the
Rules of Court will not be given premium where it would obstruct
rather than serve the broader interests of justice in the light

48
of
the prevailing circumstances in the case under consideration.”
It is therefore settled that petitioners are entitled to back

pay based on actual services rendered. However, the exact
amount due each of them will have to be determined based
on available evidence, and on any additional evidence the
CA may require to address factual questions, such as the
follow-ing:
1. Upon initial disapproval of petitioners’

appointments, were the latter reverted to their
original positions and paid their corresponding
salaries?
2. While it is not disputed that partial payments were
already received by petitioners Amago, Alayon and
Lebrillo, were the other petitioners also paid their
salaries from the time of the disapproval of their
appointments by the CSC Regional Office to the
time public respondent reversed the CSC Regional
Office and approved their appointments?
3. Do the entries in the service records of petitioners49
bear-ing the remarks “disapproved
50
appointment,”
51
“w/ pending appeal CSC,”
52
“pending case” or no
effective appointment mean that petitioners did
not render work during said periods?
4. With respect to petitioners whose service records
show that they began rendering work only upon the
approval of
_______________
48 Id., at p. 289; pp. 88-89.

49 CA Rollo, p. 93.
50 Id., at p. 85.
51 Id., at p. 95.
52 Id., at pp. 87 and 97.
83
VOL. 530, AUGUST 14, 2007 83

53
their appointments by public respondent, does this
imply that they did not render work prior to said
date?
Given the purely factual questions still to be resolved, the

orderly administration of justice behooves the
reinstatement of the appeal with the CA for a complete and
definitive determination of the exact amounts of back pay
or differential pay due the individual petitioners.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed
Resolutions dated February 22, 2002 and April 16, 2002 of
the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Let
the Petition for Review docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 69134
be REINSTATED and the issues therein be REMANDED
to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings with due
regard to rules on payment of backwages as defined by this
Court in the text of herein Decision, and to the factual
questions noted by Court.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Ynares-Santiago (Chairperson), Chico-Nazario,

Nachura and Reyes, JJ., concur.
Petition granted, assailed resolutions reversed and set

aside.
Note.—Concomitant to a liberal interpretation of the

rules of procedure should be an effort on the part of the
party invoking liberality to adequately explain his failure
to abide by the rules. (Navarro vs. Metropolitan Bank and
Trust Company, 429 SCRA 439 [2004])
——o0o——
_______________
53 Id., at pp. 49, 84, 92, 94 and 95.
84
© Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

12 Bunsay V CSC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

12 Bunsay V CSC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

12 Bunsay V CSC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

11/18/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 530

68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

JERRYBELLE L. BUNSAY, PRUDENCIO L. PERONO,

VOL. 530, AUGUST 14, 2007 69

Civil Procedure; Cases should be determined on the merits

should be determined on the merits, after giving full opportunity

ANALIE G. SALUTA, EDWIN D. AMAGO, ELVIRA A. LEBRILLO, ARC R.

70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bunsay vs. Civil Service Commission

appointments and have assumed the position to which they were

PETITION for review on certiorari of the resolutions of the

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Before the Court is a Petition for Review 1

1 Penned by Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr., with Associate

VOL. 530, AUGUST 14, 2007 71

“WHEREFORE, the request of Arsenio U. Selomandin, Jr.,

With the exception of Ariel B. Marapo, the above-

72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

were joined by Arc Catolico,

with the CSC regarding the approval of their promotional

“WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is hereby

1. Alegada, Espuerta, Tipsay, Jr., Diaz, Guanzon and

11 CSC Resolution, id., at p. 21.

VOL. 530, AUGUST 14, 2007 73

but their petition was dismissed in the February 22, 2002

“Upon a perusal of the present petition, We note that the same

1. Copy of CSC Resolution No. 01-0872 dated May 3, 2001 as

and for which, We hereby RESOLVED to DISMISS this

The Court of Appeals denied justice to petitioners and gravely

74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in not passing

18 Petition, Rollo, p. 25.

VOL. 530, AUGUST 14, 2007 75

76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Instead of outrightly remanding the case to the CA for the

It reconsidered the foregoing resolution only in favor of

27 CSC Resolution, CA Rollo, pp. 147-148.

VOL. 530, AUGUST 14, 2007 77

to the policy of “no work, no pay” be applied also to them,

appointments were disapproved. Hence, as their inability

29 Petition, Rollo, pp 29-34.

78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

they are excused for their inability to work 33 during the

they are not subject to the policy of “no work, no pay,”

“Section 10. An appointment issued in accordance with pertinent

Thus, to be entitled to initial compensation, said appointees

33 Civil Service Commission v. Gentallan, supra note 31.

VOL. 530, AUGUST 14, 2007 79

Rule VI of the Omnibus Rules on Appointment:

“Section 3. When an appointment is disapproved, the services of

It is the second set of rules, specifically paragraphs 3 and 4,

38 Cabalitan v. Department of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 162805,

80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

appointments to the date that these are finally disapproved

they actually discharged the functions of their office while

39 Civil Service Commission v. Joson, supra note 36.

VOL. 530, AUGUST 14, 2007 81

“To prevent respondent from claiming backwages would leave

42 CSC Resolution, CA Rollo, pp. 35-36.