DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the Orders of the respondent Commission on Audit dated July 2, 1996 and August 28, 1997 are SET ASIDE.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION RULED THAT DISMISSAL OF EMPLOYEES OF THE PROVINCIAL ENGINEERING OFFICE OF THE PROVINCE OF AGUSAN DEL SUL WAS ILLEGAL AND ORDERED PAYMENT OF BACK WAGES TO THESE EMPLOYEES. THE CSC ORDER BECAME FINAL. THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT PARTIALLY COMPLIED BY PAYING  PARTIAL BACK WAGES BUT THEY ALSO MADE QUERY TO COAL ON THE LEGALITY OF THE CSC ORDER. COA DISALLOWED FURTHER PAYMENT OF BACK WAGES ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH PAYMENT MUST COME FROM THE GOVERNOR WHO DISMISSED THE EMPLOYEES IN BAD FAITH.

SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF BACKWAGES IS NOT PROPER BECAUSE THE JUDGMENT WAS ALREADY FINAL. BY MAKING SUCH RULING, COA WAS ALTERING THE FINAL DECISION OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.

SUPREME COURT CONSIDERED THE INJUSTICE THAT WILL BEFALL ON THE DISMISSED EMPLOYEES.

Petitioners’ sufferings started way back in 1988 when they were unceremoniously dismissed from the service. It took five years for the MSPB to decide in their favor. Still, they were not reinstated until the following year, and this only after several motions filed and orders issued to compel the concerned public officials to reinstate them. Then again, despite an Order issued as early as April 19, 1993 by the MSPB, the provincial government was able to pay petitioners, and even only partially at that, a good two and a half years after or on December 12, 1995. Now, after more than a decade, respondent COA holds that petitioners should run after Governor Paredes in his personal capacity to collect their claims. Worse, petitioners stand in danger of being made to reimburse what has been paid to them. Under the policy of social justice, the law bends over backward to accommodate the interests of the working class on the humane justification that those with less privilege in life should have more in law. 24 Rightly, we have stressed that social justice legislation, to be truly meaningful and rewarding to our workers, must not be hampered in its application by long-winded arbitration and litigation. Rights must be asserted and benefits received with the least inconvenience. 25 And the obligation to afford protection to labor is incumbent not only on the legislative and executive branches but also on the judiciary to translate this pledge into a living reality. 26 Social justice would be a meaningless term if an element of rigidity would be affixed to the procedural precepts. Flexibility should not be ruled out. Precisely, what is sought to be accomplished by such a fundamental principle expressly so declared by the Constitution is the effectiveness of the community’s effort to assist the economically underprivileged. For under existing conditions, without such succor and support, they might not, unaided, be able to secure justice for themselves. To make them suffer, even inadvertently, from the effect of a judicial ruling, which perhaps they could not have anticipated when such deplorable result could be avoided, would be to disregard what the social justice concept stands for. 27

COA IN THEIR ORDER STATED THAT:

Anent the issue on jurisdiction, the Supreme Court had occasion to rule in the case of Department of Agriculture vs. National Labor Relations Commission . . ., thus:

Pursuant, however to C.A. No. 327, as amended by PD No. 1445, the money claim should first be brought to the Commission on Audit.

NOTE THAT THE CSC DECISION WAS ALREADY FINAL AND EXECUTORY. PER COA’S FOREGOING STATEMENT THIS MONEY CLAIM MUST FIRST BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT. IN THE RECENT V.C. PONCE CASE (G.R. NO. 213821) THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THIS MUST BE SO BECAUSE COA ACTS AS AN EXECUTION COURT.  YET IN THE ABOVE CASE, THE SUPREME COURT DID NOT ORDER UY EL AL TO RETURN FIRST THE MONEYS RECEIVED BY THEM BECAUSE OTHERWISE INJUSTICE WOULD ACCRUE.

SAID THE SUPREME COURT:

“Social justice would be a meaningless term if an element of rigidity would be affixed to the procedural precepts. Flexibility should not be ruled out.”

IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THIS PRINCIPLE APPLIES TO ATTAINMENT OF JUSTICE IN GENERAL. NOT ONLY IN FAVOR OF WORKERS. IT CAN ALSO APPLY TO CONTRACTORS WHO ACCOMPLISHED WORKS FOR THE GOVERNMENT AND HAVE ALREADY BEEN PAID PURSUANT TO A FINAL AND EXECUTORY JUDGMENT. MUST THE PAYMENTS THEY RECEIVED BE RETURNED BY THEM MERELY BECAUSE EXECUTION MUST BE COURSED THROUGH COA? THESE PAYMENTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN PAID BY THE CONTRACTOR TO THEIR SUPPLIERS AND EMPLOYEES. SAME INJUSTICE WOULD BEFALL ON THEM IF THEY ARE TO RETURN THESE PAYMENTS.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.