G.R. No. 102232 March 9, 1994 VIOLETA ALDOVINO and co. vs.

SECRETARY RAFAEL ALUNAN III, DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM and co. Facts: Herein petitioners and intervenors seek reinstatement and payment of back wages, citing Mandani v Gonzales and Abrogar v Garrucho Jr. and Garrucho. Mandani v Gonzales: EO #120, Sec. 29 took effect upon approval that reorganizes the Ministry of Tourism, providing that the incumbents whose positions are not included in the new system of position structure and staffing pattern are separated from service. Then Ministry of Tourism, afterwhich issued office orders and memoranda vacating many positions and effecting the separation of employees including petitioners Mandani, Abrogar and Arnaldo which made them file their cases and instant petition. In Mandani, the office orders and memoranda issued by MoT were declared null and void pursuant to EO#120 and to immediately restore the petitioners to their positions with salaries computed under the new position and staffing system from the dates of their invalid terminations at rates not lower than their former salaries. Issue: Whether or not the petitioners and intervenors must be reinstated and paid of their back wages. Ruling: It was the public respondents who created the problem of petitioners and intervenors by illegally abolishing their positions and terminating their services in outrageous disregard of the basic protection accorded civil servants, hence our repeated pronouncement that it was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled that herein petitioners are reinstated immediately to their former positions without loss of seniority rights and with back salaries computed under new staffing pattern from the dates of their invalid dismissal at rates not lower than their former salaries but not to exceed a period of 5 years with several provisions. Having found out that the Executive Order is unconstitutional, thus dismissal of the employees is also unconstitutional. The courts declared its total nullity. An unconstitutional act is not a law, it confers no rights, imposes no duties and affords no protection. In legal contemplation, it is inoperative as if it had not been passed. It is therefore stricken from the statute books and considered never to have existed at all. All persons are bound by the declaration of unconstitutionality which means that no one may thereafter invoke it nor may the courts be permitted to apply it in subsequent cases. It is as if the intervenors were never served their termination orders and, consequently, were never separated from the service. Whenever the courts declared an administrative official to have acted in unlawful manner, that official must undo the harmful effects of his illegal act and to accord to the aggrieved parties restoration or restitution in good faith to make up for the deprivations which may have suffered because of his act.