In the Philippines, the Supreme Court has clarified the rules regarding the payment of backwages to government appointees whose appointments were initially disapproved but later approved. The Court held that these appointees are entitled to backwages from the date of issuance of their appointments to the date of disapproval, and during the period of appeal, provided they can prove they actually performed the duties of their position. This entitlement is subject to the principle of ‘no work, no pay,’ meaning that compensation is contingent upon the actual rendering of services. This decision offers crucial guidance on the rights and responsibilities of government employees during appointment disputes.

Navigating Appointment Disapproval: Are Government Employees Entitled to Back Pay?

The case of Jerrybelle L. Bunsay et al. v. Civil Service Commission and City of Bacolod revolves around the question of whether government employees are entitled to backwages when their promotional appointments are initially disapproved but later validated. Several employees of the Bacolod City government experienced this situation and sought compensation for the period during which their appointments were under review. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) initially denied their request, leading to a legal battle that ultimately reached the Supreme Court. The core legal question is whether the principle of ‘no work, no pay’ should apply strictly to these employees, even if their inability to receive a salary was due to the initial disapproval of their appointments.

The Supreme Court addressed the issue of backwages for government appointees, emphasizing that different rules apply to employees wrongfully dismissed or suspended compared to those awaiting approval of their appointments. For those wrongfully dismissed, backwages are due, not exceeding five years, irrespective of actual services rendered during the dismissal period, as stated in Civil Service Commission v. Gentallan G.R. No. 152833. However, for appointees awaiting approval, the entitlement to compensation hinges on whether they have assumed the duties of the position. Section 10, Rule V of the CSC Omnibus Rules specifies that an appointee is entitled to receive salary immediately if the appointee assumed the duties of the position, without awaiting the approval of the appointment by the Commission.

The Court further clarified that even if an appointment is initially disapproved, services rendered during the period of disapproval may still be compensated if a motion for reconsideration or appeal is filed, as outlined in Rule VI of the Omnibus Rules on Appointment. Specifically, the court stated that:

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.

Building on this principle, appointees must demonstrate that they discharged the functions of their office while awaiting the outcome of their appeal. The Court highlighted the importance of proving actual services rendered to justify compensation, aligning with the ‘no work, no pay’ principle. The Supreme Court differentiated between employees prevented from working due to wrongful dismissal and those whose appointments were pending approval, emphasizing that different standards apply based on the circumstances. For those wrongfully dismissed, the inability to work is involuntary, excusing them from the ‘no work, no pay’ rule. For appointees, continuous service is presumed unless proven otherwise, requiring them to provide evidence of actual work performed to claim backwages.

This approach contrasts with situations where employees are wrongfully dismissed, where backwages are awarded regardless of actual service during the dismissal period, as highlighted in Cristobal v. Melchor. In such cases, the employee’s inability to work is due to an illegal act by the employer, justifying compensation without requiring proof of actual service. In the case of the Bacolod City employees, the Supreme Court underscored that because the employees’ appointments remained effective despite initial disapproval, they were not prevented from rendering public service and should, therefore, be subject to the ‘no work, no pay’ policy. The Court emphasized that the equal protection clause does not demand absolute equality but requires similar treatment for individuals under similar conditions. Therefore, the differential treatment between wrongfully dismissed employees and appointees awaiting approval is justified by the distinct circumstances of each group.

The Supreme Court acknowledged the Civil Service Commission’s (CSC) findings regarding the evidence presented by the employees. The CSC had determined that some employees were entitled to backwages based on their daily time records (DTR), while others lacked sufficient evidence to support their claims. However, the Court noted that additional evidence, such as personnel service records, was submitted on appeal, which the Court of Appeals (CA) did not consider due to the dismissal of the petition on technical grounds. While the Court acknowledged the late submission of these records, it stressed the importance of compensating employees for actual work performed. It, then, directed the Court of Appeals to consider this evidence in determining the exact amount of back pay due to each employee.

To ensure a fair resolution, the Supreme Court outlined several factual questions that the Court of Appeals must address such as: whether the employees were reverted to their original positions and paid their corresponding salaries upon initial disapproval of their appointments; whether the employees were paid their salaries from the time of disapproval by the CSC Regional Office to the time the CSC reversed the decision; and whether entries in the service records indicating disapproved appointments imply that the employees did not render work during those periods. These questions aim to ascertain the actual circumstances of each employee’s service and compensation to determine the appropriate amount of back pay due.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether government employees whose promotional appointments were initially disapproved but later approved are entitled to backwages for the period of disapproval. The Supreme Court clarified the application of the ‘no work, no pay’ principle in such cases.
What is the ‘no work, no pay’ principle?	The ‘no work, no pay’ principle means that an employee is only entitled to compensation for services actually rendered. This principle was central to the Court’s decision regarding the backwages claims of the government employees.
Who is entitled to backwages according to this ruling?	Employees whose appointments were initially disapproved but later approved are entitled to backwages, provided they can prove they actually performed the duties of their position during the period of disapproval and appeal. The amount of backwages is based on the actual services rendered.
What evidence is required to prove actual service?	Evidence such as daily time records (DTR) and certified personnel service records can be used to prove that an employee actually rendered service during the period their appointment was under review. This evidence is crucial for determining the amount of backwages due.
How does this ruling differ from cases of wrongful dismissal?	In cases of wrongful dismissal, employees are entitled to backwages regardless of whether they rendered service during the period of dismissal. This is because their inability to work was due to an illegal act by the employer, whereas appointees must demonstrate continuous service.
What is the role of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) in appointment disputes?	The CSC plays a crucial role in approving appointments and resolving disputes related to government employment. Its decisions regarding the approval or disapproval of appointments can significantly impact an employee’s entitlement to compensation.
What happens if an employee’s appointment is disapproved?	If an employee’s appointment is disapproved, their services are typically terminated, unless a motion for reconsideration or appeal is filed. If an appeal is filed, the appointment remains effective until the CSC makes a final decision.
What factual questions did the Supreme Court direct the Court of Appeals to consider?	The Supreme Court directed the Court of Appeals to consider whether the employees were reverted to their original positions and paid their salaries during the period of disapproval, and whether entries in their service records indicate they did not render work during those periods. These considerations were aimed to help the court determine the actual compensation due to each employee.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Bunsay v. Civil Service Commission provides important clarifications on the rights of government appointees to receive backwages when their appointments are initially disapproved but later validated. The ruling emphasizes the importance of proving actual services rendered and aligns with the principle of ‘no work, no pay.’ This decision ensures that employees are fairly compensated for their work while upholding the integrity of government service.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Jerrybelle L. Bunsay, et al. v. Civil Service Commission and City of Bacolod, G.R. No. 153188, August 14, 2007