EN BANC
|
BACOLOD CITY WATER DISTRICT, Petitioner, - versus - JUANITO H. BAYONA, Respondent. |
|
G.R. No. 168780 Present: PUNO, C.J., QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, CARPIO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CORONA, CARPIO MORALES, AZCUNA, TINGA, CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
This is a
petition for review[1]
of the Decision[2]
promulgated on 28 February 2005 by the Court of Appeals (appellate court) in
CA-G.R. SP No. 62275. The appellate
court’s decision affirmed Civil Service Commission (CSC) Resolution No. 001281[3]
dated
The Facts
The appellate court
stated the facts as follows:
In the
case of Davao Water District, et al. vs. Civil
Service Commission (CSC), the Supreme Court declared that a water district is a
corporation created pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 198, known as the
Provincial Water Utilities Act of 1973, as amended. As such, its officers and employees should
seek coverage under the Civil Service Law and not the Labor Code. This decision was promulgated on
Unaware of
said ruling, Bacolod City Water District (BACIWA) and
its employees entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) on
On
Section 2 of
Article XVI of the CBA between BACIWA’s
The DISTRICT shall have to compulsorily retire any employee when the latter reaches the age of sixty (60) years, unless extended by the Board with the employee’s consent when the exigency of his services so require.[6]
Nonetheless, the Board of Directors of BACIWA passed
Resolution No. 046, series of
1995 conditionally extending the term of Bayona until
In a letter
dated
With your most kind indulgence, please allow me to elevate to your good office a query regarding the compulsory retirement age of BACIWA personnel, in view of the conflicting provisions of our CBA which provides a compulsory retirement age of 60 yrs. and that of the Civil Service Law which is 65 years.
x x x
While I do
not wish to question the opinion given by the Civil Service Commission Regional
Office in Iloilo, that Division Managers in BACIWA are placed within the scope
of rank and file and should therefore be under the coverage of the existing
CBA, yet I am still inclined to believe that even as rank and file employee, we
[sic] can also avail of the provision of the CSC on compulsory retirement age
of 65, because as a law, it was adopted and made part of our CBA, as provided
under Section 6, Art. XXVIII of the said CBA.
It is therefore for this reason that lead me to believe that any BACIWA
personnel can either avail a compulsory retirement age of 60 or that of 65
years, as both compulsory retirement age likewise embodied in the CBA.[7]
Juliana B.
Carbon, BACIWA Officer-in-Charge, informed Bayona on
On
Please be
informed that terms and conditions of employment in government are subject to
Civil Service law and rules and regulations and such conditions may not be
ignored unless there is an express provision of law granting certain exemptions. Thus, while the CBA may constitute the law
between the parties, said terms and conditions should still conform with
existing laws on the same subject matter.
As applied to your case, the provisions of P.D. 1146 otherwise known as
the Revised Government Service Insurance Act of 1977 providing for a compulsory
retirement age of sixty-five (65) years with at least fifteen (15) years of
service should prevail. This is true
with other Civil Service rules providing a similar provision which shall
prevail over the terms and conditions of your CBA.[8]
On
Based on your letter dated January 16, 1996 in response to my request for an official opinion regarding the compulsory retirement age for Bacolod City Water District (BACIWA) personnel, I requested the BACIWA Board and Management for my immediate reinstatement effective December 1, 1995 as I was forced to retire last November 30, 1995 inspite of my request to be allowed to retire on a later date in order to enable me to complete and comply with the minimum requirement of fifteen (15) years of service required under P.D. 1146, not to mention that I am only 61 years old.
x x x
Todate, I have not received a reply to my request for reinstatement. I was verbally informed by the Personnel Officer that maybe the Board and Management of BACIWA will be referring the matter to the Civil Service Commission there in Manila, as they possibly must have considered your response to be only an opinion without any binding effect and as such they may be [sic] would like to seek for an official ruling of the Commission en banc. They could have overlooked the request for an official opinion and it follows that your response to me should be considered as official and not only as an ordinary personal opinion.
Please allow me therefore to request for a ruling, a resolution, an order or whatever thing that is needed to effect my reinstatement, if such is still necessary.[9]
In Resolution
No. 964918 dated
WHEREFORE, it is hereby ruled that the compulsory retirement age for personnel of the Bacolod City Water District is sixty-five (65) years with an option to retire earlier at age sixty (60) years.[10]
BACIWA filed a motion for
reconsideration. Because there was no
mention of Bayona in the dispositive
portion of Resolution No. 964918, BACIWA asked whether the CSC’s
ruling that the compulsory retirement age for BACIWA personnel is 65 years,
with an option to retire earlier at 60 years, applies specifically to Bayona, who reached 60 years on 16 May 1994 when the CBA
between BACIWA and its union was still existing and yet to expire on 30
September 1996. BACIWA insisted that the
compulsory retirement age of BACIWA employees which is 65 years, with an option
to retire at age 60, should be made applicable only after 30 September 1996,
the expiry of the CBA.
In Resolution
No. 973564 dated
WHEREFORE,
the instant motion of Bacolod City Water District is
hereby denied. Accordingly, the CSC
Resolution No. 964918 dated
BACIWA filed a
petition for review before the appellate court, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No.
45369. In a decision dated
In the case of public employees like Bayona, there is a law fixing the compulsory retirement age at 65 years which is P.D. 1146 (Revised Government Service Insurance Act of 1977).
In 1977,
P.D. 1146 was promulgated decreeing that the compulsory retirement age of
officers and members of the civil service is 65 years old. On
Consequently, when the CBA was executed and made effective on October 1, 1991, [BACIWA] and the Union of which respondent Bayona was a member were conclusively presumed to know that: a) respondent Bayona and his co-officers and employees in BACIWA were members of the civil service; and, b) the compulsory retirement age of members of the civil service as decreed by law is 65 years old, and yet, the parties stipulated for a lower compulsory retirement age.
The vital issue then is: What is the nature of the law fixing the compulsory retirement age of members of the civil service at 65 years? This Court holds that [the] law, PD 1146, is mandatory in character and tenor. The fixing of compulsory retirement age for public officers and employees is certainly most impressed with public interest for the age at which a public employee is retired affects his physical, mental, emotional, and financial well-being. The state as parens patriae fixed the compulsory retirement age of members of its personnel to ensure their welfare as well as the good of the State. The chosen age is based upon vital considerations like, among others, the general physical and mental health of the employee, his productivity or creativity; economic benefit to the employee and the financial constraints of the government agency concerned. It is clear to this Court that the fixing of the compulsory retirement age at 65 is a public policy.
Can the statutorily fixed compulsory retirement age be lowered by a CBA between the union of employees belonging to the civil service and the government-owned and controlled corporation? Negative is the answer.
x x x x
[T]his Court holds that the CBA lowering the compulsory retirement age of the officers and employees of BACIWA from the statutorily fixed 65 years is null and void because: a) PD 1146 gives Bayona a right to be compulsorily retired at age 65 and he cannot waive that right because such waiver is contrary to public policy; and, b) it is a fundamental principle that an existing law is in legal contemplation a part of a contract so that PD 1146 is a part of the CBA, hence the latter violated the law by lowering the compulsory retirement age fixed by PD 1146.
x x x x
This Court, therefore, finds no reversible error in the appealed decision.
WHEREFORE,
for lack of merit, the appeal is DISMISSED and the appealed Decision is
AFFIRMED.[12]
Bayona still was not reinstated. In view of the rulings in CSC Resolution Nos.
964918 and 973564 and in CA-G.R. SP No. 45369, Bayona,
in a letter dated
The Ruling of the CSC
In Resolution
No. 001281 dated
Pertinent
portions of CSC Resolution No. 001281
read:
Pertinent
to the discussion is the ruling of the High Court in the Case of Castelo v. Court of Appeals, 244 SCRA 180, dated
“The established doctrine is that when the dispositive portion of a judgment, which has become final and executory, contains a clerical error or an ambiguity arising from an inadvertent omission, such error or ambiguity may be clarified by reference to the body of the decision itself.”
In the instant case, it was Bayona who requested the Commission to render an opinion regarding the validity of Section 2, Article XVI of then [sic] CBA. Hence, when the Commission rendered its decisions in CSC Resolution Nos. 96-4918 and 97-3564, it was with the purpose of determining the legal right of Bayona to his position as Manager of the General Service[s] Division of BACIWA for the period of May 16, 1994 (date of 60th birthday) up to May 16, 1999 (date of 65th birthday).
Moreover, the body of the decision of the Court of Appeals categorically mentioned the following, to wit:
“In the case of public employees like Bayona, there is a law fixing the compulsory retirement age at 65 years which is P.D. 1146 (Revised Government Service Insurance Act of 1977).”
Bayona turned sixty-five
(65) years old on
WHEREFORE, the Commission hereby rules that Juanito H. Bayona be paid his
back salaries and other benefits covering the period
BACIWA moved
for the reconsideration of CSC Resolution No. 001281. BACIWA asked whether Bayona
should be reinstated to his former position and be paid his back salaries and
other benefits. BACIWA also stated that
the CSC failed to observe due process when it issued CSC Resolution No. 001281
without furnishing copies to the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel and
to BACIWA. For his part, Bayona moved to correct the
period within which he is entitled to back salaries and other benefits. In BACIWA Board Resolution No. III, series of
1995, BACIWA extended Bayona’s term only up to
In Resolution
No. 002606 dated
WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration of Bacolod City Water District is hereby denied for lack of
merit. Accordingly, BACIWA is directed
to pay the back salaries and other benefits of Juanito
H. Bayona from
BACIWA again
filed a petition for review before the appellate court, docketed as CA-G.R. SP
No. 62275, questioning the award to Bayona. BACIWA sought to set aside or modify CSC
Resolution Nos. 001281 and 002606.
BACIWA also prayed for the issuance of a temporary restraining order
and/or writ of preliminary injunction against the CSC’s
enforcement of the resolutions.
The Ruling of the Appellate Court
On P100,000 bond. The appellate
court also ordered the CSC to desist from implementing its resolutions during
the pendency of the case before the appellate court,
or until the issuance of an order to the contrary.
On
The appellate
court ruled thus:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Civil Service Commission Resolution Nos. 00-1281 and 00-2606 are AFFIRMED. The writ of preliminary injunction previously issued is QUASHED and declared of no further effect.
SO
ORDERED.[15]
BACIWA filed a motion for
reconsideration, which the appellate court denied. The appellate court stated that the grounds
raised in BACIWA’s motion had already been thoroughly
discussed in the appellate court’s decision.
The Issues
BACIWA now
questions the award of Bayona’s back salaries and
other benefits primarily because of the omission of such award in CSC
Resolution Nos. 964918 and 973564, the subsequent correction in CSC Resolution
Nos. 001281 and 002606, and the affirmation of the correction in CA G.R. SP No.
62275. Moreover, BACIWA insists that
this Court rule on the propriety of the award of Bayona’s
back salaries and other benefits because BACIWA terminated Bayona’s
services in good faith.
The Ruling of the Court
The petition
has no merit.
Payment of Back Salaries and
Other Benefits As A Matter of Course
As a
preliminary note, we emphasize that because of CA-G.R. SP No. 45369, there is
already a final decision on the determination of the compulsory retirement age
of BACIWA employees and on the nullity of the CBA provision declaring 60 years
as the compulsory retirement age for BACIWA employees. Moreover, there are a number of cases[16]
promulgated before Davao City Water
District v. Civil Service Commission,[17]
the decision relied upon by BACIWA, that specifically ruled that local water
districts are quasi-public corporations whose employees belong to the Civil
Service and that the dismissal of employees of local water districts is
governed by the Civil Service Law and regulations. Thus, there is no need to decide these
matters all over again.
BACIWA
questions the appellate court’s affirmation of the subsequent corrections in
CSC Resolution Nos. 001281 and 002606, and
insists that the issues of reinstatement and back salaries have to be relitigated. The CSC
and the appellate court ruled otherwise. We affirm the rulings of the CSC and the
appellate court.
BACIWA
conveniently overlooked Bayona’s request for
reinstatement in his letter to the CSC dated 4 March 1996:
Please allow me therefore to request for a ruling, a resolution, an order or whatever thing that is needed to effect my reinstatement, if such is still necessary.[18]
The CSC quoted from Bayona’s letter
in CSC Resolution No. 964918. Bayona raised the issue of reinstatement before the CSC as
early as 4 March 1996. Bayona was still eligible for reinstatement as of this
date. Prior to 4 March 1996, Bayona also made a request for reinstatement before BACIWA
but did not receive any reply.[19] Bayona’s first
letter to the CSC, dated 14 August 1995, only asked about the proper compulsory
retirement age because he was about to retire from BACIWA.
Bayona’s requests for reinstatement debunk BACIWA’s statement that Bayona
never raised the issue of reinstatement in the proceedings prior to CSC
Resolution No. 001281. Bayona is thus not at fault for the failure of CSC
Resolution Nos. 964918 and 973564 to specifically order his reinstatement.
We treat Bayona’s 6 May 1999 letter to the CSC as a motion for
clarification of the rulings in CSC Resolution Nos. 964918 and 973564. We now clarify what the appellate court
affirmed. What is involved in the
present case is not a clerical error (as typified by an error in arithmetical
computation) or a correction of an erroneous judgment or dispositive
portion of a judgment. In the present
case, there is an inadvertent omission on the part of the rulings in CSC
Resolution Nos. 964918 and 973564 and in CA-G.R. SP No. 45369 to provide a
translation of the rulings into operational or behavioral terms.[20]
BACIWA states
that there should be no award of back salaries and other benefits to Bayona. Substantial
justice militates against BACIWA’s position. Substantial justice cannot be served if we
continue to allow BACIWA to treat Bayona as retired
at age 60 even after the annulment of
its CBA provision mandating retirement at 60 years. When the appellate court in CA-G.R. SP No.
45369 stated that “PD 1146 gives Bayona a right to be
compulsorily retired at age 65 and he cannot waive that right because such
waiver is contrary to public policy,”[21]
the appellate court definitely did not bar Bayona’s
reinstatement and payment of back salaries and other benefits. If at all, this pronouncement supports Bayona’s position.
The appellate court in CA-G.R. SP No. 62275 is correct in saying that
“as a necessary consequence of his reinstatement to the service, Mr. Bayona must be compensated for [lost] income arising from
his illegal removal by forced retirement.”[22]
The sufficiency and efficacy of a judgment must be
tested by its substance rather than its form.
In construing a judgment, its legal effects including such effects that
necessarily follow because of legal implications, rather than the language
used, govern. Also, its meaning,
operation, and consequences must be ascertained like any other written
instrument. Thus, a judgment rests on
the intention of the court as gathered from every part thereof, including the
situation to which it applies and the attendant circumstances.[23]
BACIWA further
insists that there should be no award of back salaries and other benefits because
of the appellate court’s declaration in CA-G.R. SP No. 62275 that “[w]ith the Tripartite Committee (that included the CSC),
agreeing to continue the existence of said CBA up to its expiry date, there was
no bad faith involved in BACIWA’s decision to retire Bayona.”[24] BACIWA cannot rely on this declaration.
The appellate
court’s lack of finding of bad faith in BACIWA’s
forced retirement of Bayona is diametrically opposed
to the appellate court’s statement two pages after: “With PD 1146 fixing the retirement
age at 65 years, the CBA violated this law by lowering the compulsory
retirement age at 60 years.” The
Tripartite Committee merely agreed to continue the implementation of benefits. The Tripartite Committee did not provide that
CBA provisions that violate laws should remain in force.
Finally,
Section 75 of Rule V of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in
the Civil Service, Memorandum Circular No. 19, series of 1999, Resolution No.
991936 reads:
Effect of Decision. — Where the Commission, on appeal, sets aside, modifies or reverses the decision whereby an employee was dropped from the rolls, he shall be reinstated immediately to his former post with payment of back salaries and other money benefits. For this purpose, dropping from the rolls, being non-disciplinary in nature, shall not result in the forfeiture of benefits.
In case of illegal termination, the employee shall be reinstated with payment of back salaries. x x x
The Revised Uniform Rules took effect on 14 September 1999.
Clearly, when the CSC issued Resolution No. 001281 on 26 May 2000 and awarded Bayona his back salaries and benefits, the Revised Uniform
Rules were already in effect.
WHEREFORE,
we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the Decision dated 28
February 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 62275 affirming Civil
Service Commission Resolution Nos. 001281 and 002606. We ORDER the Bacolod
City Water District to pay the back salaries and benefits of Juanito H. Bayona from 1 December
1995 to 16 May 1999.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
Chief
Justice
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate
Justice |
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate
Justice |
|
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice
|
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
|
ADOLFO
S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice |
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate
Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO,
JR. Associate Justice |
|
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
RUBEN T.
REYES Associate Justice |
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to
Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in
the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
Chief Justice
[1] Under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
[2] Rollo, pp. 8-20. Penned by Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo, with Associate Justices Eugenio S. Labitoria and Magdangal M. De Leon, concurring.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12] Id. at 114-117.
[13] Id. at 85.
[14] Id. at 91.
[15] Id. at 19-20.
[16] Tanjay Water District v. Gabaton, G.R. Nos. 63742 and 84300, 17 April 1989, 172 SCRA 253; Hagonoy Water District v. NLRC, No. L-81490, 31 August 1988, 165 SCRA 272; Baguio Water District v. Trajano, 212 Phil. 674 (1984).
[17] G.R. Nos. 95237-38, 13 September 1991, 201 SCRA 593.
[18] Rollo, p. 94.
[19] Id. at 93.
[20] See Republic Surety and Insurance Co. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, Nos. L-71131-32, 27 July 1987, 152 SCRA 309.
[21] Rollo, p. 116.
[22] Id. at 14.
[23] Padua v. Robles, 160 Phil. 1159, 1165 (1975).
[24] Rollo, p. 15.