65 - Peralta v. CSC
65 - Peralta v. CSC
65 - Peralta v. CSC
CSC (1992)
Doctrine: 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 interpretation of the
law is at best advisory, for it is the courts that finally determine what the law means.
Summary: Peralta received his initial salary in Oct 1989 and since he had no accumulated leave
credits, DTI deducted from his salary the amount corresponding to his absences during the
covered period, namely, six (6) days comprised of the two Fridays he was on leave without pay
and inclusive of the Saturdays and Sundays right after the two Fridays. Peralta questioned the
included Saturday and Sunday deductions with the General Administrative Service and
subsequently, also sent a letter to CSC Chair Sto. Tomas to inquire on the propriety of the
deductions made. He argued that a reading of the General Leave Law as contained in the
Revised Administrative Code (RAC), as well as the old Civil Service Law (R.A. No. 2260), the Civil
Service Decree (P.D. No. 807), and the Civil Service Rules and Regulations failed to disclose a
specific provision which supported the CSC rule at issue. In answer, the Commission issued
Resolution No. 90-497, which stated 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." The resolution also referred
to the 2nd Indorsement, dated February 12, 1965, of the Commission, which embodied the
policy on leave of absence without pay incurred on a Friday and a Monday. MR denied in
another resolution, hence the current petition for review of the CSC’s resolutions.
Issue: W/N the policy that had been adopted and in force since 1965 is valid as law. NO.
Ruling: In promulgating as early as 12 February 1965 the questioned policy, CSC interpreted the
provisions of R.A. No. 2625 (1960) amending the RAC. The CSC 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. Administrative
construction, if we may repeat, is not necessarily binding upon the courts. 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. 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 cannot be declared
absent on such nonworking days. Petition granted, CSC Resolutions declared null and void.