Marianne L.

Lalwani 1 Administrative Law

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC

G.R. No. 95832 August 10, 1992 MAYNARD R. PERALTA, Petitioner, vs. CI IL SER ICE COMMISSION, Respondent. PADILLA, J.: Petitioner was appointed Trade- pecialist !! on "# epte$ber %&'& in the (epart$ent of Trade and !ndustr) *(T!+. ,is appoint$ent was classified as -Reinstate$ent.Per$anent-. Before said appoint$ent, he was wor/in0 at the Philippine Cotton Corporation, a 0overn$ent-owned and controlled corporation under the (epart$ent of A0riculture. 1n ' (ece$ber %&'&, petitioner received his initial salar), coverin0 the period fro$ "# epte$ber to 2% 1ctober %&'&. ince he had no accu$ulated leave credits, (T! deducted fro$ his salar) the a$ount correspondin0 to his absences durin0 the covered period, na$el), "& epte$ber %&'& and "3 1ctober %&'&, inclusive of Saturdays and Sundays. More specificall), the dates of said absences for which salar) deductions were $ade, are as follows4 %. "& epte$ber %&'& - 5rida) ". 23 epte$ber %&'& - aturda) 2. 3% 1ctober %&'& - unda) 6. "3 1ctober %&'& - 5rida) #. "% 1ctober %&'& - aturda) 7. "" 1ctober %&'& - unda) Petitioner sent a $e$orandu$ to A$ando T. Alvis *Chief, 8eneral Ad$inistrative ervice+ on %# (ece$ber %&'& in9uirin0 as to the law on salar) deductions, if the e$plo)ee has no leave credits. A$ando T. Alvis answered petitioner:s 9uer) in a $e$orandu$ dated 23 ;anuar) %&&3 citin0 Chapter #.6& of the ,andboo/ of !nfor$ation on the Philippine Civil ervice which states that -when an e$plo)ee is on leave without pa) on a da) before or on a da) i$$ediatel) precedin0 a aturda), unda) or ,olida), such aturda), unda), or ,olida) shall also be without pa) *C C, "nd !nd., 5ebruar) %", %&7#+.Petitioner then sent a latter dated "3 5ebruar) %&&3 addressed to Civil ervice Co$$ission *C C+ Chair$an Patricia A. to. To$as raisin0 the followin0 9uestion4 !s an e$plo)ee who was on leave of absence without pa) on a da) before or on a da) ti$e i$$ediatel) precedin0 a aturda), unda) or ,olida), also considered on leave of absence without pa) on such aturda), unda) or ,olida)< 1 Petitioner in his said letter to the C C Chair$an ar0ued that a readin0 of the 8eneral =eave =aw as contained in the Revised Ad$inistrative Code, as well as the old Civil ervice =aw *Republic Act No. ""73+, the Civil ervice (ecree *Presidential (ecree No. '3>+, and the Civil ervice Rules and Re0ulation fails to disclose a specific provision which supports the C C rule at issue. That bein0 the case, the petitioner contented that he cannot be deprived of his pa) or salar) correspondin0 to the intervenin0 aturda)s, unda)s or ,olida)s *in the factual situation posed+, and that the withholdin0 *or deduction+ of the sa$e is tanta$ount to a deprivation of propert) without due process of law. 1n "# Ma) %&&3, respondent Co$$ission pro$ul0ated Resolution No. &3-6&>, rulin0 that the action of the (T! in deductin0 fro$ the salar) of petitioner, a part thereof correspondin0 to si? *7+ da)s * epte$ber "&, 23, 1ctober %, "3, "%, "", %&'&+ is in order. 2 The C C stated that4

Marianne L. Lalwani 2 Administrative Law

!n a "nd !ndorse$ent dated 5ebruar) %", %&7# of this Co$$ission, which e$bodies the polic) on leave of absence without pa) incurred on a 5rida) and Monda), reads4 Mrs. Rosalinda 8on@ales is not entitled to pa)$ent of salar) correspondin0 to ;anuar) "2 and "6, %&7#, aturda) and unda), respectivel), it appearin0 that she was present on 5rida), ;anuar) "", %&7# but was on leave without pa) be0innin0 ;anuar) "#, the succeedin0 Monda). It is the view of this Office that an employee who has no more leave credit in his favor is not entitled to the payment of salary on Saturdays, Sundays or holidays unless such non-working days occur within the period of service actually rendered. *E$phasis supplied+ The rationale for the above rulin0 which applies onl) to those e$plo)ees who are bein0 paid on $onthl) basis, rests on the assu$ption that havin0 been absent on either Monda) or 5rida), one who has no leave credits, could not be favorabl) credited with intervenin0 da)s had the sa$e been wor/in0 da)s. ,ence, the above polic) that for an e$plo)ee on leave without pa) to be entitled to salar) on aturda)s, unda)s or holida)s, the sa$e $ust occur between the dates where the said e$plo)ee actuall) renders service. To rule otherwise would allow an e$plo)ee who is on leave of absent *sic+ without pa) for a lon0 period of ti$e to be entitled to pa)$ent of his salar) correspondin0 to aturda)s, unda)s or holida)s. !t also discoura0es the e$plo)ees who have e?hausted their leave credits fro$ absentin0 the$selves on a 5rida) or Monda) in order to have a prolon0ed wee/end, resultin0 in the preAudice of the 0overn$ent and the public in 0eneral. 3 Petitioner filed a $otion for reconsideration and in Resolution No. &3->&>, the respondent Co$$ission denied said $otion for lac/ of $erit. The respondent Co$$ission in e?plainin0 its action held4 The Primer on the Civil Service dated e!ruary "#, #$%&, em!odies the Civil Service Commission rulings to !e o!served whenever an employee of the government who has no more leave credits, is a!sent on a riday and'or a (onday is enough !asis for the deduction of his salaries corresponding to the intervening Saturdays and Sundays . Bhat the Co$$ission perceived to be without basis is the de$and of Peralta for the pa)$ent of his salaries correspondin0 to aturda)s and unda)s when he was in fact on leave of absence without pay on a 5rida) prior to the said da)s. A readin0 of Republic Act No. ""73 *sic+ does not show that a 0overn$ent e$plo)ee who is on leave of absence without pa) on a da) before or i$$ediatel) precedin0 aturda)s, unda) or le0al holida) is entitled to pa)$ent of his salar) for said da)s. 5urther, a readin0 of enate ;ournal No. 7> dated Ma) 6, %&73 of ,ouse Bill No. 6% *Republic Act No. "7"#+ reveals that while the law e?cludes aturda)s, unda)s and holida)s in the co$putation of leave credits, it does not, however, include a case where the leave of absence is without pa). ,ence, appl)in0 the principle of inclusio unius est e)clusio alterius, the clai$ of Peralta has no $erit. Moreover, to ta/e a different posture would be in effect 0ivin0 $ore pre$iu$ to e$plo)ees who are fre9uentl) on leave of absence without pa), instead of discoura0in0 the$ fro$ incurrin0 further absence without pa). ! Petitioner:s $otion for reconsideration havin0 been denied, petitioner filed the present petition. Bhat is pri$aril) 9uestioned b) the petitioner is the validit) of the respondent Co$$ission:s polic) $andatin0 salar) deductions correspondin0 to the intervenin0 aturda)s, unda)s or ,olida)s where an e$plo)ee without leave credits was absent on the i$$ediatel) precedin0 wor/in0 da). (urin0 the pendenc) of this petition, the respondent Co$$ission pro$ul0ated Resolution No. &%-#63 dated "2 April %&&% a$endin0 the 9uestioned polic), considerin0 that e$plo)ees paid on a $onthl) basis are not re9uired to wor/ on aturda)s, unda) or ,olida)s. !n said a$endator) Resolution, the respondent Co$$ission resolved -to adopt the polic) that when an e$plo)ee, re0ardless of whether he has leave credits or not, is absent without pa) on da) i$$ediatel) precedin0 or succeedin0 aturda), unda) or holida), he shall not be considered absent on those da)s.- Me$orandu$ Circular No. %7 eries of %&&% dated "7 April %&&%, was also issued b) C C Chair$an to. To$as adoptin0 and pro$ul0atin0 the new polic) and directin0 the ,eads of (epart$ents, Bureaus and A0encies in the national and local 0overn$ents, includin0 0overn$ent-owned or controlled corporations with ori0inal charters, to oversee the strict i$ple$entation of the circular. Because of these develop$ents, it would see$ at first blush that this petition has beco$e $oot and acade$ic since the ver) C C polic) bein0 9uestioned has alread) been a$ended and, in effect, Resolutions No. &3-6&> and &3->&>, subAect of this petition for certiorari, have alread) been set aside and superseded. *ut the issue of whether or not the policy that had !een adopted and in force since #$+, is valid or not, remains unresolved. Thus, for reasons of public interest and public polic), it is the dut) of the Court to $a/e a for$al rulin0 on the validit) or invalidit) of such 9uestioned polic). The Civil ervice Act of %&#& *R.A. No. ""73+ conferred upon the Co$$issioner of Civil ervice the followin0 powers and duties4 ec. %7 *e+ with the approval b) the President to prescribe, a$end and enforce suitable rules and re0ulations for carr)in0 into effect the provisions of this Civil ervice =aw, and the rules prescribed pursuant to the provisions of this law shall beco$e effective thirt) da)s after publication in the 1fficial 8a@etteC ??? ??? ???

Marianne L. Lalwani 3 Administrative Law

*/+ To perfor$ other functions that properl) belon0 to a central personnel a0enc). 5 Pursuant to the fore0oin0 provisions, the Co$$ission pro$ul0ated the herein challen0ed polic). aid polic) was e$bodied in a "nd !ndorse$ent dated %" 5ebruar) %&7# of the respondent Co$$ission involvin0 the case of a Mrs. Rosalinda 8on@ales. The respondent Co$$ission ruled that an e$plo)ee who has no leave credits in his favor is not entitled to the pa)$ent of salar) on aturda)s, unda)s or ,olida)s unless such non-wor/in0 da)s occur within the period of service actuall) rendered. The sa$e polic) is reiterated in the ,andboo/ of !nfor$ation on the Philippine Civil ervice. " Chapter 5ive on leave of absence provides that4 #.#%. Bhen intervenin0 aturda), unda) or holida) considered as leave without pa) - when an e$plo)ee is on leave without pa) on a da) before or on a da) i$$ediatel) precedin0 a aturda), unda) or holida), such aturda), unda) or holida) shall also be without pa). *C C, "nd !nd., 5eb. %", %&7#+. !t is li/ewise illustrated in the Pri$er on the Civil ervice # in the section referrin0 to Duestions and Answers on =eave of Absences, which states the followin04 ">. ,ow is leave of an e$plo)ee who has no $ore leave credits co$puted if4 *%+ he is absent on a 5rida) and the followin0 Monda)< *"+ if he is absent on 5rida) but reports to wor/ the followin0 Monda)< *2+ if he is absent on a Monda) but present the precedin0 5rida)< - *%+ ,e is considered on leave without pa) for 6 da)s coverin0 5rida) to Monda)C - *"+ ,e is considered on leave without pa) for 2 da)s fro$ 5rida) to unda)C - *2+ ,e is considered on leave without pa) for 2 da)s fro$ aturda) to Monda). Bhen an ad$inistrative or e?ecutive a0enc) renders an opinion or issues a state$ent of polic), it $erel) interprets a pre-e?istin0 lawC and the ad$inistrative interpretation of the law is at best advisor), for it is the courts that finall) deter$ine what the law $eans. 8 !t has also been held that interpretative re0ulations need not be published. 9 !n pro$ul0atin0 as earl) as %" 5ebruar) %&7# the 9uestioned polic), the Civil ervice Co$$ission interpreted the provisions of Republic Act No. "7"# *which too/ effect on %> ;une %&73+ a$endin0 the Revised Ad$inistrative Code, and which stated as follows4 ec. %. ections two hundred ei0ht)-four and two hundred ei0ht)-five-A of the Ad$inistrative Code, as a$ended, are further a$ended to read as follows4 ec. "'6. After at least si? $onths: continues *sic+ faithful, and satisfactor) service, the President or proper head of depart$ent, or the chief of office in the case of $unicipal e$plo)ees $a), in his discretion, 0rant to an e$plo)ee or laborer, whether per$anent or te$porar), of the national 0overn$ent, the provincial 0overn$ent, the 0overn$ent of a chartered cit), of a $unicipalit), of a $unicipal district or of 0overn$ent-owned or controlled corporations other than those $entioned in ection two hundred si?t)-ei0ht, two hundred sevent)-one and two hundred sevent)-four hereof, fifteen da)s vacation leave of absence with full pa), e?clusive of aturda)s, unda)s and holida)s, for each calendar )ear of service. ec. "'#-A. !n addition to the vacation leave provided in the two precedin0 sections each e$plo)ee or laborer, whether per$anent or te$porar), of the national 0overn$ent, the provincial 0overn$ent, the 0overn$ent of a chartered cit), of a $unicipalit) or $unicipal district in an) re0ularl) and speciall) or0ani@ed province, other than those $entioned in ection two hundred si?t)-ei0ht, two hundred sevent)-one and two hundred sevent)-four hereof, shall be entitled to fifteen da)s of sic/ leave for each )ear of service with full pa), e?clusive of aturda)s, unda)s and holida)s4 Provided, That such sic/ leave will be 0ranted b) the President, ,ead of (epart$ent or independent office concerned, or the chief of office in case of $unicipal e$plo)ees, onl) on account of sic/ness on the part of the e$plo)ee or laborer concerned or of an) $e$ber of his i$$ediate fa$il).

Marianne L. Lalwani 4 Administrative Law

The Civil ervice Co$$ission in its here 9uestioned Resolution No. &3->&> construed R.A. "7"# as referrin0 onl) to 0overn$ent e$plo)ees who have earned leave credits a0ainst which their absences $a) be char0ed with pa), as its letters spea/ onl) of leaves of a!sence with full pay. The respondent Co$$ission ruled that a readin0 of R.A. "7"# does not show that a 0overn$ent e$plo)ee who is on leave of absence without pay on a da) before or i$$ediatel) precedin0 a aturda), unda) or le0al holida) is entitled to pa)$ent of his salar) for said da)s. Ad$inistrative construction, if we $a) repeat, is not necessaril) bindin0 upon the courts. Action of an ad$inistrative a0enc) $a) be disturbed or set aside b) the Audicial depart$ent if there is an error of law, or abuse of power or lac/ of Aurisdiction or 0rave abuse of discretion clearl) conflictin0 with either the letter or the spirit of a le0islative enact$ent. 10 Be find this petition to be i$pressed with $erit. As held in -idalgo vs. -idalgo4 11 . . . . where the true intent of the law is clear that calls for the application of the cardinal rule of statutor) construction that such intent or spirit $ust prevail over the letter thereof, for whatever is within the spirit of a statute is within the statute, since adherence to the letter would result in absurdit), inAustice and contradictions and would defeat the plain and vital purpose of the statute. The intention of the le0islature in the enact$ent of R.A. "7"# $a) be 0leaned fro$, a$on0 others, the sponsorship speech of enator Arturo M. Tolentino durin0 the second readin0 of ,ouse Bill No. 6% *which beca$e R.A. "7"#+. ,e said4 The law actuall) provides for sic/ leave and vacation leave of %# da)s each )ear of service to be with full pa). But under the present law, in co$putin0 these periods of leaves, aturda), unda) and holida)s are included in the co$putation so that if an e$plo)ee should beco$e sic/ and absent hi$self on a 5rida) and then he reports for wor/ on a Tuesda), in the co$putation of the leave the aturda) and unda) will be included, so that he will be considered as havin0 had a leave of 5rida), aturda), unda) and Monda), or four da)s. The purpose of the present bill is to e?clude fro$ the co$putation of the leave those da)s, aturda)s and unda)s, as well as holida)s, because actuall) the e$plo)ee is entitled not to 0o to office durin0 those da)s. And it is unfair and unAust to hi$ that those da)s should be counted in the co$putation of leaves. 12 Bith this in $ind, the construction b) the respondent Co$$ission of R.A. "7"# is not in accordance with the le0islative intent. R.A. "7"# specificall) provides that 0overn$ent e$plo)ees are entitled to fifteen *%#+ da)s vacation leave of absence with full pa) and fifteen *%#+ da)s sic/ leave with full pa), e)clusive of Saturdays, Sundays and -olidays in !oth cases. Thus, the law spea/s of the 0rantin0 of a ri0ht and the law does not provide for a distinction between those who have accu$ulated leave credits and those who have e?hausted their leave credits in order to enAo) such ri0ht. .!i le) non distinguit nec nos distinguere de!emus/ The fact re$ains that 0overn$ent e$plo)ees, whether or not the) have accu$ulated leave credits, are not re9uired b) law to wor/ on aturda)s, unda)s and ,olida)s and thus the) can not be declared absent on such non-wor/in0 da)s. The) cannot be or are not considered absent on non-wor/in0 da)sC the) cannot and should not be deprived of their salar) correspondin0 to said non-wor/in0 da)s Aust because the) were absent without pa) on the da) i$$ediatel) prior to, or after said non-wor/in0 da)s. A different rule would constitute a deprivation of propert) without due process. 5urther$ore, before their a$end$ent b) R.A. "7"#, ections "'6 and "'#-A of the Revised Ad$inistrative Code applied to all 0overn$ent e$plo)ee without an) distinction. !t follows that the effect of the a$end$ent si$ilarl) applies to all e$plo)ees enu$erated in ections "'6 and "'#-A, whether or not the) have accu$ulated leave credits. As the 9uestioned C C polic) is here declared invalid, we are ne?t confronted with the 9uestion of what effect such invalidit) will have. Bill all 0overn$ent e$plo)ees on a $onthl) salar) basis, deprived of their salaries correspondin0 to aturda)s, unda)s or le0al holida)s *as herein petitioner was so deprived+ since %" 5ebruar) %&7#, be entitled to recover the a$ounts correspondin0 to such non-wor/in0 da)s< The 0eneral rule vis-a-vis le0islation is that an unconstitutional act is not a lawC it confers no ri0htsC it i$poses no dutiesC it affords no protectionC it creates no officeC it is in le0al conte$plation as inoperative as thou0h it had never been passed. 13 But, as held in Chicot County 0rainage 0istrict vs. *a)ter State *ank4 1! . . . . !t is 9uite clear, however, that such broad state$ents as to the effect of a deter$ination of unconstitutionalit) $ust be ta/en with 9ualifications. The actual e?istence of a statute, prior to such deter$ination is an operative fact and $a) have conse9uences which cannot alwa)s be i0nored. The past cannot alwa)s be erased b) a new Audicial declaration. The effect of the subse9uent rulin0 as to invalidit) $a) have to be considered in various aspects - with respect to particular relations, individual and corporateC and particular conduct, private and official.

Marianne L. Lalwani 5 Administrative Law

To allow all the affected 0overn$ent e$plo)ees, si$ilarl) situated as petitioner herein, to clai$ their deducted salaries resultin0 fro$ the past enforce$ent of the herein invalidated C C polic), would cause 9uite a heav) financial burden on the national and local 0overn$ents considerin0 the len0th of ti$e that such polic) has been effective. Also, ad$inistrative and practical considerations $ust be ta/en into account if this rulin0 will have a strict restrospective application. The Court, in this connection, calls upon the respondent Co$$ission and the Con0ress of the Philippines, if necessar), to handle this proble$ with Austice and e9uit) to all affected 0overn$ent e$plo)ees. !t $ust be pointed out, however, that after C C Me$orandu$ Circular No. %7 eries of %&&% - a$endin0 the herein invalidated polic) - was pro$ul0ated on "7 April %&&%, deductions fro$ salaries $ade after said date in contravention of the new C C polic) $ust be restored to the 0overn$ent e$plo)ees concerned. B,ERE51RE, the petition is 8RANTE(, C C Resolutions No. &3-6&> and &3->&> are declared NE== and F1!(. The respondent Co$$ission is directed to ta/e the appropriate action so that petitioner shall be paid the a$ounts previousl) but unlawfull) deducted fro$ his $onthl) salar) as above indicated. No costs. 1 1R(ERE(. 1arvasa, C/2/, 3utierre4, 2r/, Cru4, eliciano, *idin, 3ri5o-67uino, (edialdea, Regalado, 0avide, 2r/, Romero, 1ocon and *ellosillo, 22/, concur/